1975-03-17

PRIVILEGE


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. In the debate on Friday, March 14, I was the final speaker. I spoke concerning criticism, and so on, which was levelled at the Minister of Agriculture. I rise on this question of privilege not because of lack of reporting but lack of printing what I actually said. It makes me wonder how far we can go. This question of privilege affects many members of the House of Commons because of the impression that is left. For example, in the March 15 edition of the Ottawa Journal, all that I could find reported about me was a brief article headlined, "Whelan defends speaking tours". I quote from the article:
"Too many damn politicians hole up in this place and forget there's an outside world," he said, adding that he spends much of his time away from Ottawa talking to service and consumer groups.
Part of that is accurate. However, what I actually said should be put on the record to show what I meant. I said, as recorded at page 5025 of Hansard:
It must be admitted that the press in the big cities does not do the job it should in telling the people of Canada what the score is, so I believe in taking the government to the people. I myself do it on Wednesday nights when this institution is not sitting, and I also do it on Friday evenings and on the weekends, so let no one say to me that I am jeopardizing my job here. I work seven days a week, and that is my business if I want to make that sacrifice on behalf of the people of Canada.
It has also been reported in several other newspapers, as intimated in telephone calls I received over the weekend, that I said members of the opposition were damn liars. One headline reads, "Criticism just 'damn lies'". I spoke when Your Honour's assistant was in the chair. I talked about consultation, and so on, with members of other departments concerned, and about consumer and producer concerns. I said, and I quote:
I see nothing wrong with departments that are concerned about trade and all these other things working together and coming to a mutual understanding on what we are trying to do about food production in this country. I have been accused of being just a representative of the farmers. That is a damn lie, and I will say so at mass on Sunday if anybody wants me to do that. It is a damn lie, because if I can make a strong agricultural industry, all society benefits, not just agriculture
If what I said had been reported accurately, there would be a better understanding, which would be better for all of us. What I said may have been reported, but if it was, it was not recorded in the press.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the opposition, may I extend the deepest sympathy of the opposition to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) on his difficulties with the press.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I might only add that the Chair has at least equal difficulty in finding a question of privilege.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43-


Some hon. Members:: No!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: -to seek the leave of the House to move a motion arising out of answers given to two questions on the order paper last week. It concerns a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre:
That in regard to the answers to order paper questions 1,041 and 1,042 revealing approximately a quarter of a million dollar fraud involved in two local initiative program projects applied for by Mr. Guy Poulin in the constituency of Montreal-Bourassa, and in regard to the refusal of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration in his answers to reveal the names and addresses of all persons recommending these fraudulent projects to the government, the House requests the Minister of Manpower and Immigration to make public forthwith all files pertaining to these projects and to adopt a policy in future of making public the names of all persons involved in local initiative program projects where charges of fraud have been laid and proven. And, further, the House believes that parliament possesses the right to know and to receive information that cannot be deprived by arbitrary and unauthorized actions of a minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion. Being proposed under Standing Order 43 it cannot be debated unless there is unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Order Paper Questions


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I ask the unanimous consent of the House under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity.
Considering the precarious situation of Quebec industrial milk producers and the absolute necessity of that industry, and in view of the decreasing number of producers and the present difficulty to have adequate relief, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise):
That the House unanimously recommend to the Minister of Agriculture to seriously consider the request of Quebec milk producers to get a minimum price of $11.60 per hundredweight of industrial milk.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the hon. member's motion. Under Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Since there is not unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be	answered today:	12, 229, 969, 1,023,	1,183,1,184, 1,211,	1,234,	1,274,	1,277,	1,278,	1,301,	1,319, 1,325,	1,344,1,363, 1,449,	1,473,	1,527,	1,576,	1,585,	1,605,	1,670, 1,671,	1,681,1,689, 1,690,	1,691,	1,699,	1,700,	1,712,	1,734,	1,735, 1,747,	1,759,
1,763, 1,774 and 1,824.
If questions No. 560, 707, 713, 1,124, 1,177, 1,220, 1,251, 1,282, 1,537, 1,579 and 1,673 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.
Would you be so kind as to call starred questions No. 1,445, 1,553 and 1,665?
I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Is the government aware of the increasing availability of new information on the adverse effects of marijuana smoking and, if so, for what reason is the Department of National Health and Welfare not making this known to the youth of this country?
2.	Is the government aware of a recent study by Dr. Masters and his team (April 16,1974-New England Journal of Medicine) and, if so, is the

Minister prepared to publicize the results of that finding which indicated a forty per cent reduction in the body's protection against disease in a once-a-week user of marijuana over a year, as well as reports of serious chromosome breakage in sixty per cent of those using marijuana once a week?
3.	Does the government intend to publicize the results of the January 1974 issue of the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology dealing with chromosome breakage in marijuana users?
4.	Is the government planning any kind of a national advertising campaign, particularly in light of new findings to make known the harmful effects of marijuana smoking?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. The government is fully aware of all new information regarding cannabis from Canada, the United States and other countries. In general, these findings have confirmed earlier evidence that cannabis has a number of complex effects on the human body after smoking or ingestion. These effects are both physical and psychological in nature. A large amount of conformatory and analytic research is presently underway in both Canada and abroad relating to the significance of these effects in terms of their potential hazards for public health and society as a whole. It should be noted that there is a wide discrepancy at this time between the conclusions of various researchers partly because of the difficulty that has been experienced in carrying out animal research with cannabis, and partly because of the greatly varying strengths available in one country as compared to another.
2.	There have been reports of an effect of cannabis on the reproductive cells of some animal species but not present evidence of any lasting effect in humans. There is no evidence that the children born to parents who utilize cannabis have an increased incidence of congenital deformities and no child born of a cannabis-using mother has demonstrated cannabis addiction after birth. The recent communication of Drs. Kolodny and Masters reported that sex hormone levels in cannabis users was approximately 40 per cent less than levels found in control persons who do not use cannabis in any form. It should be added that cessation from marijuana use for a period of two weeks resulted in a return to complete normalcy. A recent verbal report soon to be published has failed to confirm the findings of Kolodny and Masters. The disparity may be explained by the fact that most cannabis users also employ other drugs some of which by themselves depress sex hormone levels. The work which has been carried out regarding the effect of cannabis on immunity is based on laboratory evidence only and refers to the ability of certain white blood cells called lymphocytes to react to a chemical form of stimulation. The precentage changes in function cannot be readily extrapolated to the clinical situation where cannabis is metabolized into many derivatives during the time that it is circulating in the body and coming into contact with specific organs and cells.
3.	The study of Dr. Morton Stenchever was published in the January issue of the "American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology". It is available for any media to publicize further.
4.	The government will continue to make information available that will keep the Canadian population aware of the effects of various psychotropic substances including cannabis (marijuana).


Mr. Howie: 1.	What programmes are now under way as a result of the general agreement on Regional Economic Expansion signed by Canada and New Brunswick?
2.	Other than the agreement to assist fruit farmers, what sub-agreements are under negotiation and at what stage of negotiation are these agreements?
Mr. cJoseph-Philippe Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion): At
present, the following subsidiary agreements have been signed and are being implemented in New Brunswick under the authority of the General Development Agreement between the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the province of New Brunswick. 1. Canada-New Brunswick Highways Agreement; Canada-New Brunswick Agricultural Development Agreement; Canada-New Brunswick King's Landing Historical Settlement Agreement; Canada-New Brunswick Kent Region Pilot Project Agreement; Canada-New Brunswick Miramichi Channel Study Agreement; Canada-New Brunswick Saint John and Moncton Arterial Highways Agreement; Canada-New Brunswick Industrial Development Agreement; Canada-New Brunswick Forestry Agreement.
2.	A number of other subsidiary agreements are at various stages of negotiation. They include such areas as minerals, tourism, fisheries, and planning and implementation.


Mr. Forrestall: With respect to the reductions in the Canadian Armed Forces next year, have any discussions taken place between the government and the provincial or municipal authorities involved respecting closings under the Base Consolidation Programme and (a) if so, with whom (b) if not, will the government undertake to carry on consultation with the responsible authorities prior to any decision to either close a facility or effect substantial cut-backs?
Hort. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence): (a) Consultation between the department and the provincial and municipal authorities of the province of Quebec and Ontario were held with respect to the status changes at Canadian Forces station Val d'Or and Moo-sonee publicly announced on the Jan. 16, 1975. (b) Consultations with federal, provincial and municipal authorities are held in accordance with well established procedures whenever any major reductions are contemplated.


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): 1.	Since 1960, have the Royal Canadian Mint and the Bank of Canada received suggestions with respect to new manufacturing processes of coins or banknotes and, if so (a) how many (b) on what dates?
2.	How many of the suggestions were (a) considered (b) accepted?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: 1.	The copper penny and the five cent nickel have not been changed. Two changes have been made in the remaining coins. In 1967, the silver content was reduced from 80 percent to 50 percent, and in 1968, the silver content was eliminated. In both these changes, silver was replaced by
Order Paper Questions
nickel. It should be noted that changes in metallic content apply only to coins used for transactions purposes; i.e., the silver content of the commemorative dollars remain unchanged.
2.	Not applicable.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What was the name of the constituency in which Local Initiatives Programme Project No. 311335, known as Project Aldergrove, was
located?
2.	(a) Were government auditors refused admittance to the premises of this project to examine records (b) were such auditors admitted after certain negotiations took place (c) did these negotiations in any way include correspondence, telephone calls or any other means of contact or communication between a man named Mr. Michael Carson and the then Minister of Manpower and Immigration, the Honourable Bryce Mackasey and, if so, what were all details involved?
3.	(a) What was the exact connection with this project on the part of Mr. Carson (b) what were all the places in the files on this project that his name appeared and in what specific connections in each case?
4.	Is, or was, the Department or the present or previous Minister of Manpower and Immigration aware as to whether this Mr. Michael Carson is the same M. Carson whose name appears on page 12 of the Norris Report of July 1963 in regard to the SIU-CSU situation?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. Greenwood.
2.	(a) Yes. (b) Yes. (c) Yes. On May 18, 1972, the Hon. Bryce Mackasey explained to Mr. M. Carson by registered mail the nature of project audits. Being in accordance with the project contract, refusal would constitute a breach of contract and as such provide grounds for termination of project.
3.	(a) Mr. M. Carson was the sponsor of Project Aldergrove. (b) As sponsor, Mr. Carson's name appears on various documents as endorser of the project.
4.	As of December 18th, 1974, neither the present minister nor the Department of Manpower and Immigration was aware that Mr. Michael Carson, head of the Ontario Anti-Poverty Group, was the same Mr. Carson whose name appeared on page 12 of the Norris report of July 1963, in regard to the report of an Industrial Inquiry Commission on the Disruption of Shipping on the Great Lakes, the St. Lawrence River System and Connecting Waters, in his capacity as Toronto representative of the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway Transport and General Workers.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What was the name of the constituency in which Local Initiatives Programme Research No. 311981, known as Project Anti-Poverty, was located?
2.	(a) Were government auditors refused admittance to the premises of this project to examine records (b) were such auditors admitted after certain negotiations took place (c) did these negotiations in any way include correspondence, telephone calls or any other means of contact or communication between a man named Mr. Michael Carson and the then Minister of Manpower and Immigration, the Honourable Bryce Mackasey and, if so, what were all details involved?


Order Paper Questions
3.	(a) What was the exact connection with this project on the part of Mr. Carson (b) what were all the places in the files on this project that his name appeared and in what specific connections in each case?
4.	Is, or was, the Department or the present or previous Minister of Manpower and Immigration aware as to whether this Mr. Michael Carson is the same M. Carson whose name appears on page 12 of the Norris Report of July 1963 in regard to the SIU-CSU situation?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. Greenwood.
2. (a) Yes. (b) Yes. (c) Yes. On May 18, 1972, the hon. Bryce Mackasey explained to Mr. Carson by registered mail the nature of project audits. Being in accordance with the project contract, refusal would constitute a breach of contract and as such provide grounds for termination of project.
3.	(a) Mr. M. Carson was to sponsor of the project "Research Anti-Poverty", (b) As sponsor, Mr. Carson's name appears on various documents as endorser of the project.
4.	As of December 18th, 1974, neither the present Minister nor the Department of Manpower and Immigration was aware that Mr. Michael Carson, head of the Ontario Anti-Poverty Group, was the same Mr. Carson whose name appeared on page 12 of the Norris report of July 1963, in regard to the report of an Industrial Inquiry Commission on the Disruption of Shipping on the Great Lakes, the St. Lawrence River System and Connecting Waters, in his capacity as Toronto representative of the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway Transport and General Workers.


Mr. Huntington: 1.	For what reason did the government enclose advertising with family allowance cheques to, in the opinion of the government, help Canadians shape up their lifestyle in 1975?
2.	For what reason did the government publish a Lifestyle Calendar full of facts and fun?
3.	What was the cost of preparation and publication of the calendar in Canadian newspaper supplements?
4.	What is the projected cost of (a) receipt of requests for such calendars (b) processing such requests (c) mailing such free copies?
5.	What is the Information Directorate of the Department of National Health and Welfare and what is its function?
6.	What is the estimated cost in payroll, fringe benefits and other support services to service (a) the Directorate (b) the Lifestyle Calendar (c) every other monthly informational service which accompanies the family allowance cheque?


Marc Lalonde: 1. An insert was included with the December Family Allowance and Old Age Security cheques to inform 5.5 million cheque recipients of the distribution of the Health Lifestyle Calendar in the newspapers and to encourage a large section of the public to utilize the calendar throughout the year.
2.	The Health Lifestyle Calendar is one part of various components of a Health Awareness Campaign, formulated and derived from the working paper "A New Perspective on the Health of Canadians", introduced in the House of Commons on May 1, 1974. The calendar is meant to point out that there are many "diseases of choice" over which individuals have control and it provides some useful
[Mr. Cossitt.l
health tips in order to affect motivational changes towards adopting a more positive health lifestyle.
3.	$285,000.
4.	(a), (b) and (c) $5,000. (based on anticipated demand of 25,000 individual copies).
5.	The Information Directorate is responsible for the development and maintenance of standards of communication effectiveness and quality of expression for all public information emanating from the Department. These responsibilities are derived from legislative obligations and the need to explain departmental policies and programs and are consistent with the recognized right of Canadians to full objective and timely information on departmental activities.
6.	(a) $1,588,000. (b) Approximately $7,000. (c) Approximately $500 per month on average.


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): 1.	For each of the past ten years what portion, as a sum and as a percentage, of the annual budget of the Indian and Eskimo Affairs Programme of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, was used for administration purposes?
2.	(a) How many persons are permanently employed in the Programme and, of these, how many occupy executive positions (b) how many Indians are employed in the Programme (i) in total (ii) in executive positions?
3.	For each of the past five years (a) what sums of money were accorded Indians on reserves without passing through the hands of the band councils (b) what were the designated purposes of these sums?
4.	(a) What are the nature and amounts of grants currently available to Indian individuals and groups under the Indian and Eskimo Affairs Programme which do not pass through the hands of the band councils (b) what are the criteria for qualifying for such grants?
5.	For each of the past five years, what sums of money did the National Indian Brotherhood receive from the government?


Mrs. Iona Campagnolo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1.
Year	Sum	Percentage1966-67	$9,679,000	8.71967-68	10,931,000	8.91968-69	11,236,000	7.81969-70	12,345,000	6.61970-71	15,363,000	6.91971-72	18,026,000	6.91972-73	19,961,000	7.21973-74	24,711,000	7.31974-75	25,388,000	6.52.	As of December 30, 1974; (a) 5,171 permanent employees; 16 permanent employees occupied executive positions; (b) (i) 1,135 Indians occupied full-time continuing positions, 199 Indians were casual or term employees; (ii) 2 Indians in executive positions.
3.	Payments made to Indians on reserves which do not pass through the hands of the band councils are for welfare services and relocation.
	Welfare Services	Relocation
1969-70	*16,095,000	*213,0001970-71	19,826,000	181,0001971-72	20,797,000	329,0001972-73	22,437,000	276,0001973-74	23,033,000	286,0004.	(a) $334,000 is set aside annually for cultural grants, (b) Priority is given to those cultural applications which strive to maintain and retain the traditional cultural patterns relating to a particular group for which no other financial support is now available. It is advisable that grants be approved for individuals or groups who wish to do work in the development and preservation of such areas as native art, writing, languages and music. Whenever possible priority is also given to those projects which involve new approaches and to people who have not been assisted in former years.5.	Payments to the National Indian Brotherhood for the past five years are:1909-70	*151,000197(1 71	252,0001971-72	-1972-73	70,0001973-74	122,000


Mr. Reid: 1.	(a) Has the management at the Shong Way Shi plant at Whitefish Bay Reserve, in the Kenora District Office of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, been changed and, if so, on what date (b) what were the contractual terms, including salary range and any other terms under which the former management worked and how many individuals composed this management (c) for what reason was a decision made to change management, who requested the change and by what means was this request made known to the authority which made the change (d) who did make the change and what were the formal reasons for the change in management?
2.	What was (a) the average weekly wage paid per person employed, exclusive of management (b) the average number of persons employed, exclusive of management (c) the total wage bill for the number of people employed, exclusive of management in the Shong Way Shi plant, calculated over one month periods for the past six months?
3.	For the new management (a) what are the terms of its contract, including salary ranges and any other terms (b) how many people make up this management group (c) what is the citizenship of each of its members (d) where did they work immediately before accepting their current positions (e) what is their experience relative to the manufacturing carried on at Shong Way Shi (f) what conditions of productivity does this new management team have to meet, compared with the productivity targets set for the previous management?


Iona Campagnolo: 1.	(a) The management is in the process of being changed, (b) The former management consisted of a manager and a
Order Paper Questions
trainer. Terms of employment are confidential as the contract was between the company and the persons concerned. (c) The manager and the company both recognized that the situation was unsatisfactory and proceeded to negotiate a contract termination settlement. The trainer was released by the company for unsatisfactory performance. (d) See (c) above.
2.	The detailed information requested is confidential to the company. Employment was approximately 25 full-time employees at a wage not less than $2.50 per hour. Attendance was approximately 90 per cent.
3.	(a) No contracts have been entered into with the new management, but contracts may be arranged if performance in the initial period of employment so (b) The management group will consist of a general manager and a production manager, (c) The former is a Canadian, the latter a U.S. citizen, (d) The general manager is a businessman from Sioux Narrows in Kenora District, the production manager previously worked in New York, (e) The general manager has business management experience and the production manager has spent many years in the production of fur garments, (f) Productivity is not the major management problem. Management objectives relate to the development and sale of profitable product lines. The same was true with the previous management.


Mr. Robinson: How much fluid milk was produced in 1973 and 1974?


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Statistics Canada reports that the fluid milk produced in 1973 amounted to 5,516,189,000 pounds and in 1974, 5,643,148,000 pounds.


Mr. Robinson: How much powdered milk was produced in 1973 and 1974?


Gaston Clermont: Statistics Canada reports that the production of powdered skim milk in 1973 amounted to 309,690,000 pounds and in 1974,
301,283,000	pounds. Small quantities of whole milk powder, are excluded to avoid disclosure of individual plant operations.


Mr. Paproski: 1.	How many full-time employees were under salary in the Department of National Defence on (a) January 1, 1974 (b) January 1, 1975?
2.	How many people in each of these years received salaries of (a) under $10,000 (b) between $10,000 and $20,000 (c) between $20,000 and $30,000 (d) over $30,000?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: 1. The number of full-time employees receiving salaries for the dates in question was as follows: (a) January 1, 1974-32,355; (b) January 1, 1975-32,449.


Order Paper Questions
2.	The number of full-time employees who in 1974 and 1975 received salaries in accordance with the salary ranges in question is listed below:
	1974	1975
(a) Under $10,000	27,812	25,143(b) Between $10,000 and $20,000	4,026	6,573(c) Between $20,000 and $30,000	504	617(d) Over $30,000	13	116Total	32,355	32,449


Mr. Paproski: 1.	How many full-time employees were under salary in the Department of Supply and Services on (a) January 1, 1974 (b) January 1, 1975?
2.	How many people in each of these years received salaries of (a) under $10,000 (b) between $10,000 and $20,000 (c) between $20,000 and $30,000 (d) over $30,000?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: 1. (a) 8559; (b) 9011.
	1974	1975
(a)	5210	4725(b)	2834	3450(c)	498	769(d)	17	67


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	With reference to the definitions used in response to Question No. 515 (a) what was the total cost of goods and services exclusive of personnel costs and transfer payments supplied to the Department of National Defence during (i) the 12 months ended March 31, 1974 (ii) the 12 months ended March 31, 1973 (b) what is the estimated cost for the fiscal year 1974-75?
2.	What is the real increase in total cost for goods and services to the Department for the 12 months ended March 31, 1974 over the comparable figure to March 31,1973, expressed as a percentage?
3.	What is the estimated real increase in total cost for goods and services to the Department for the 12 months ended March 31, 1975 over the comparable figure to March 31, 1974, expressed as a percentage?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1. (a) The total cost of goods and services exclusive of personnel costs and transfer payments supplied to the Department of National Defence during: (i) the 12 month period ending March 31, 1974, was $818,979,000; (ii) the 12 month period ending March 31, 1973, was $693,838,000. (b) The estimated cost for fiscal year 1974-75 is $956,903,000.
2.	The real increase in total cost of goods and services supplied to the department during the 12 month period ending March 31, 1974 compared with the corresponding 12 month period ending March 31, 1973, expressed as a percentage was 5.9 per cent.

3.	The estimated real increase in total cost of goods and services supplied to the department during the 12 month period ending March 31, 1975 compared with the corresponding 12 month period ending March 31,	1974,
expressed as a percentage is 0.27 per cent.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What categories and ranks specifically of public servants (other than SX) are considered part of the Senior Management complement
of government departments?
2.	What are the salary ranges of each and how much of these categories have salary maximums equal to or exceeding that of SX 1 public servant?
3.	In each of these categories, how many public servants are employed?
Hort. Jean Chretien (President of Treasury Board): 1.
Positions classified in the groups and levels displayed below are considered to be equivalent to senior executive officer levels and part of the management complement of government departments:
Salary Range Number of
Group	Level	Minimum	Maximum	Incumbent9Actuarial Science	4	28,000	34,600	1Agriculture Architecture &	6	25,100	32,000	7Town Planning	8	25,500	32,500	69	28,500	36,300	1Auditing	7	25,500	32,500	5Biological Sciences	6	25,400	31,300	5Chemistry Economics, Sociology	6	25,000	32,000	1& Statistics	5	27,300	33,800	82Education Services Engineering & Land Survey	7	25,500	32,500	1Engineering	7	25,500	32,500	318	28,100	35,200	3Land Survey	7	25,500	32,500	68	28,100	35,200	0Forestry	5	25,500	32,500	1Foreign Service	4	30,500	35,800	645	34,400	38,900	13Historical Research	5	22,000	30,000	6Law Medicine-Medical	3	27,400	43,000	32Officer	4	34,995	39,301	415	33,100	40,700	18Meteorology	11	25,500	31,300	12Physical Sciences	6	25,100	30,500	2Psychology	5	21,941	27,295	1Scientific Regulation Scientific Research	10	25,500	32,500	lResearch Manager	3	27,100	34,700	124Science Adviser	1	18,700	32,500	12	22,000	31,000	0Social Work	6	19,500	24,700	0Veterinary Science	6	25,500	32,500	2
2. Salary ranges for each of these groups and levels are displayed in (1) above. All but nine of these salary ranges
*



have maxima equal to or exceeding the maximum of the senior executive officer 1 salary range.
3.	The number of public servants in positions classified in these groups and levels are displayed in (1) above.
Order Paper Questions
dents who applied for medical school in 1972, 1,178 were rejected. Information for 1973 and 1974 is not yet available.
5 and 6. This information can be obtained from the respective provinces.


Mr. Herbert: During each of the past five years, what was the division of advertising revenue for television between English and French programmes of CBC?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: The division of net advertising revenue for television between the English and French television networks of CBC during each of the past five fiscal years is as follows:
Television
English	French
$ *
1973/74
1972/73
1971/72
1970/71
1969/70
32.385.000	12,038,000
29.531.000	9,863,000
26.921.000	8,852,000
24.620.000	8,285,000
26.708.000	7,352,000


Mr. Rynard: 1.	How many foreign students are enrolled in medicine this year in all Canadian universities?
2.	What is the percentage rate and how many students plan to remain in Canada upon graduation?
3.	What is the percentage of doctors practicing in Ontario and Quebec who were born (a) outside the province in which they practice (b) outside of Canada?
4.	How many students born in Canada who qualified academically for medical school were rejected, by province?
5.	What is the cost of educating a doctor from his entrance to medical school to his graduation?
6.	What is the cost of educating a doctor at (a) the University of Toronto (b) the University of Montreal (c) the University of Manitoba (d) Laval University (e) the University of British Columbia?


John Mercer Reid: 1. 96.
2.	Plans of students after graduation are not known.
3.	Information is not available on the place of birth of doctors practising in Ontario and Quebec. The following information is available on the place of graduation: Active physicians in Ontario-11.3 per cent graduated in other Canadian provinces; 32.1 per cent graduated outside Canada; active physicians in Quebec-6.6 per cent graduated in other Canadian provinces; 15.7 per cent graduated outside Canada.
4.	Data, by province, on the number of Canadian students rejected from medical school should be obtained from the respective provinces. Out of 2,935 Canadian stu-


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 24 which, among other persons, listed P. A. Bourne, wife of an employee of the Department of the Solicitor General, as one of those taking French language courses at government expense while not herself a member of the Public Service, is this individual the wife of Mr. R. B. Bourne, Assistant Deputy Minister in charge of the Police and Security Planning and Analysis Group?
2.	What is the exact annual salary in dollars paid to Mr. Bourne?
3.	For what reason did the government at taxpayer's expense pay for Mrs. Bourne's French language courses (a) was one of the reasons because the government believed that Mr. Bourne's salary was not sufficient for him to pay this expense himself (b) over how long a period of time did Mrs. Bourne take French language courses at taxpayer's expense and what was the total annual salary of Mr. Bourne during that period of time?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am
informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: see reply to Question No. 1,446 answered March 12, 1975.


Mr. Howie: Are there any discrepancies on the military records of Earle Hazen Schleyer (C-18056) and, if so, will the government consider reviewing his court martial?


James Armstrong Richardson: As this case has been carefully reviewed by the government in response to earlier requests and as no discrepancies have been found a further review is not considered necessary.


Mr. Schellenberger: Will the government give consideration to amending the Unemployment Insurance Act, in particular the Sections of the Act and Regulations that stipulate that sickness benefits are only payable during the initial benefit period?


Robert Knight Andras: On my instructions the commission has been conducting a comprehensive review of the existing Unemployment Insurance Act and Regulations. The sickness benefit provisions are among those which have been selected for reconsideration.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): Has the Minister of Finance, or the Inspector-General of Banks acting for the Minister, since April 10, 1974, had any further discussions with the chartered banks concerning the need for the pensions paid to their retired employees to be escalated annually by an amount at least equal to the rise in the cost of living and, if so, can the Minister
4144

Order Paper Questions
now say whether the chartered banks are implementing this practice with respect to their retired employees and, if not, whether they have made any improvement in this regard since they reported to the Minister as indicated in his statement recorded on page 1323 of Hansard for April 10,1974?


Mr. Jack Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, it is not the policy of government to impose conditions on pension plans of private employers beyond those conditions contained in the Pension Benefits Standards Act, and there have been no further discussions with the chartered banks concerning the pensions of their retired employees. As reported earlier, however, the banks normally review the situation annually, taking into account the rise in cost of living, and make special supplementary payments particularly to the older pensioners or their survivors.


LANGUAGE TRAINING FOR UNILINGUAL PERSONS WINNING COMPETITIONS
Mr. Herbert: 1.	Of the unilingual persons winning competitions for positions designated bilingual, what percentage are sent for language training in
(a)	the English language (b) the French language?
2.	Are statistics kept for the past two years on the number of such persons?
3.	What is the failure rate from such training?
4.	In the event of a failure to pass such a language course, are the original competition entrants given an opportunity to fill the position if they have the necessary qualifications?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: 1. (a) In the English language-10.6 per cent; (b) In the French language-89.4 per cent.
2.	Statistics on the number of such people have been kept from the inception of continuous/intensive training.*
3.	The Language Bureau decided to terminate training in the case of 2.1 per cent of the competition winners.*
4.	Yes. Normally, the candidate whose name appears next on the eligible list established for that competition would then be offered the position concerned.
*The period for which these statistics apply is from September 1, 1973 to December 31, 1974.


Mr. Schellenberger: Is the Minister of Finance considering removing incorporated family farms from the ordinary category of incorporated business for the purpose of income tax, such measures in some instances raising their tax rate from 21 percent to 50 percent?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: No, there is no contemplation of removing incorporated farms from the ordinary category of incorporated business for the purpose of income tax. Incorporated farms benefit from the small business deduction, thereby effectively paying corporate taxes at a 25 per cent rate on the first $100,000 of active business income under the recent budget proposal. (Previously, the first $50,000 was eligible for the low rate

of tax.) Only the excess over $100,000 in a taxation year would be subject to the higher rate of tax under Bill C-49, until such time as the cumulative limit of $500,000 was
reached.


Mr. Saltsman: 1.	Has the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs made an investigation into the new checkout system of supermarkets, called the universal product code, with the view of ascertaining how this automated system is going to affect consumers?
2.	Is the Minister also checking into the concerns of the Consumers Association of Canada that credit information compiled by the supermarkets and stored in their computers will be sold to other businesses?
3.	Is the Minister also investigating the psychological effects of this system, particularly the concern of the Consumers Association of Canada, that the removal of a visible price will remove the consumer's price consciousness and that this is the aim of the universal produce code?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: 1. Yes, the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is monitoring the operation of the one retail food store now using the new computer operated checkout system involving the universal product code.
2.	Yes, the department has been considering the concerns of the Consumers' Association of Canada. However, there is no evidence to indicate that the computer will be used to store credit information or that credit information will be sold to other businesses. For the most part, supermarkets do not extend credit, but rather cheque cashing privileges.
3.	No, at this time the department has not undertaken any research into the psychological effects of the system on consumers' price consciousness, nor to our knowledge, have the retailers involved in Canada or the United States. As far as the Department is aware there is no intention to remove visible prices. The system at present being tested replaces prices on the items by prices on shelves.


Mr. O'Sullivan: 1.	(a) In connection with the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee of the Southwestern Ontario Airports Study project, were the municipal councils of the Town of Ancaster and the Township of Glanbrook requested to suggest representatives for this Committee (b) did these municipal councils recommend any names to the Department of Transport (c) were any of these persons appointed to the committee (d) if recommendations were made and these people not appointed to the committee, what was the reason or reasons for omitting these citizens recommended by the municipal councils?
2.	(a) Did a vacancy arise on the membership of the committee as a result of Mr. Walter Stayshyn being appointed to the bench (b) does this vacancy still exist (c) is the Minister of Transport considering the filling of this vacancy by appointing a representative recommended by either the municipal councils of Ancaster or Glanbrook?
3.	(a) Has the Minister of Transport received representations from the Chairman of the Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth, and Mayor Ann Sloat of Ancaster regarding the government's failure to appoint citizens recommended by the councils of Glanbrook and Ancaster to the committee (b) on what dates and by what means were these messages received and transmitted (c) on what date were these representations replied to by the Department of Transport?


Mr. O'Sullivan: 1.	Are beavers trapped by any agency of the government in Gatineau Park and, if so (a) which agency does the trapping (b) what kind of traps are used?
2.	Does the government ever use leg traps in the capture of beavers and, if so, in what locations?
3.	Has the government received submissions on alternate methods of trapping to the use of leg traps and, if so, what were the findings of the submissions?
4.	(a) How many beavers were trapped in Gatineau Park during the year 1974 (b) were the beaver pelts sold and, if so, how much was the government paid for them?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: In so far as the National Capital Commission is concerned: 1. (a) As the agency responsible for Gatineau Park, the National Capital Commission traps beaver as part of the wildlife management programme, (b) If the habitat conditions permit, beaver are live trapped and moved to alternate areas. Otherwise, Coni-Bear traps are used.
2.	No.
3.	Although there is no record of any submissions on alternate methods of trapping, other types of traps are known to the Warden Service of the National Capital Commission and to the Canadian Wildlife Service (which advises NCC on all aspects of wildlife control and man-
Order Paper Questions
agement), and it is possible that alternative types of traps may have been suggested in letters.
4.	(a) 24; (b) Beaver pelts sold during 1974 derived revenue of $791.18.


Mr. Huntington: How much income tax is paid by government employees?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: For the calendar year 1974, the following amounts were deducted at source from government employees paid through the services of the Department of Supply and Services:	Federal tax $576,464,634.38; Quebec tax


Mr. Allard: How many loan applications were submitted in 1974 by Quebec fishermen under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act?


John Napier Turner: Applications for loans under guaranteed loans plans are made directly to chartered banks and other designated lenders. Records are maintained centrally by the government only in respect of loans granted under the guarantee and no data is available on the number of applications submitted to lenders.


Mr. Scott: For each year 1972 to 1974, how many (a) full-time public servants
(b)	part-time public servants (c) consultants were in the employ of the Farm Credit Corporation?


Eugene Whelan: The Farm Credit Corporation advises:
	(a)	(b)	(c)


Mr. Scott: By province, for each year 1972 to 1974, how many applications for loans were (a) made to the Farm Credit Corporation (b) approved?


Eugene Whelan: The Farm Credit Corporation advises:
28996-57%

Order Paper Questions
(a)	(b)
1972-73	1973-74	April 1, 1974 to January 31, 1975	1972-73	1973-74	April 1, 1974 to January 31, 1975British Columbia	270	400	293	215	330	234Alberta	1,446	2,108	1,742	867	1,580	1,468Saskatchewan	2,439	3,128	2,121	1,694	2,527	1,932Manitoba	636	951	731	439	744	680Ontario	1,794	3,114	2,340	1,273	2,475	2,007Quebec	964	1,560	1,816	682	1,216	1,517New Brunswick	74	75	66	70	62	62Nova Scotia	30	39	8	23	31	6Prince Edward Island	55	91	77	33	66	73Newfoundland	6	11	10	6	10	10


Mr. Scott: For each year 1972 to 1974, how many applications for loans were (a) made to the Farm Credit Corporation from the constituency of Vic-toria-Haliburton (b) granted?


Eugene Whelan: The Farm Credit Corporation advises: Statistics are not maintained on a constituency basis. However, for the counties of Victoria (except the township of Manvers), Haliburton and Peterborough (except the township of Cavan), the answer is:
(a)
(b)
April 1, 1974 to 1972-73	1973-74 January 31, 1975
38	65	4425	47	32


Mr. Halliday: 1.	Has the City of Montreal repaid the government the loan it obtained for EXPO '67?
2.	Was interest charged and, if so, has it been paid?


John Napier Turner: 1. Loans by the federal government to finance Expo '67 were made directly to the Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition. In accordance with the terms of a tripartite agreement, the final deficit of the corporation, that is, the net cost of the exhibition, was shared by the federal government, the province of Quebec, and the city of Montreal. In the settlement of accounts among the partners, an amount of $14,371,429 was due by the city of Montreal to the federal government. This amount is being paid in instalments, the first of which was received on October 1, 1969 and the last of which is due on April 1, 1977. As of February 28, 1975, the principal outstanding had been reduced to $5,816,000.
2. Interest is being charged on this loan at the rate of 5.46 per cent per annum. Interest payments have thus far been met as and when due.


Mr. Jones: 1.	(a) On what date was a FM radio station established for Richibuc-to, New Brunswick (b) who was responsible for the establishment (c) to what network does it belong?
2.	What language is used on the FM radio station for Richibucto?
3.	(a) How is programming for this station provided (b) is its programming simultaneous to the CBC AM station at Moncton, New Brunswick?
4.	What was the capital cost to erect and establish the FM radio station for Richibucto?
5.	By year, since its inception, what have been the total costs, capital and operating, in detail, for the station?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. (a) The station, CBHM-FM, officially commenced operations on November 19, 1968. (b) Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, (c) It belongs to the French AM radio network of the CBC.
2.	French.
3.	(a) It is programmed via leased network facilities from CBAF, Moncton, (b) Yes.
4.	$9,977.94.
5.	Since its establishment no further capital expenditures have been made. Operating costs have averaged $300 per annum for parts, tests and maintenance. As for the annual network line charges from the telephone company, they are included in a contract for radio network service to many other locations across the country and cannot be specifically isolated. It is estimated, however, that the feed has cost approximately $1,900 per annum.


Mr. Francis: Has any uranium or plutonium been missing or unaccounted for in Canada?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Atomic Energy Control Board reports as follows: No, other than the acceptably small quantities lost in normal processing.


Mr. Carter: 1.	How many applications were submitted in Newfoundland for loans under the Small Businesses Loans Act for the periods (a) October 1974 to December 1974 (b) January 1974 to December 1974 (c) January 1973 to December 1973?
2.	What were (a) the names of the lending agencies in Newfoundland to whom applications were submitted during the same periods (b) the amounts requested (c) in each case, the number of loans approved?


John Napier Turner: 1. Applications for loans under guaranteed loans plans are made directly to chartered banks and other designated lenders. Records are maintained centrally by the government only in respect of loans granted under the guarantee and no data is available on the number of applications submitted to lenders.
2. Under this program all chartered banks are eligible lenders and hence applications may be submitted to any chartered bank in Newfoundland. In addition, other lenders such as credit unions, loan, trust or insurance companies may apply for designation as lenders. However, in Newfoundland, none of these have applied for such designation.


Mr. Carter: 1.	How many applications were submitted in Newfoundland for loans under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act for the periods (a) January 1974 to December 1974 (b) January 1973 to December 1973?
2.	What were (a) the names of the lending agencies in Newfoundland to whom applications were submitted during the same periods (b) the amounts requested (c) in each case, the number of loans approved?


John Napier Turner: 1. Applications for loans under guaranteed loans plans are made directly to chartered banks and other designated lenders. Records are maintained centrally by the government only in respect of loans granted under the guarantee and no data is available on the number of applications submitted to lenders.
2. Under this program all chartered banks are eligible lenders and hence applications may be submitted to any chartered bank in Newfoundland. In addition, other lenders such as credit unions, loan, trust or insurance companies may apply for designation as lenders. However, in Newfoundland, none of these have applied for such designation.
ADVERTISING COSTS OF "NOW: IT'S SHOP FOR A JOB" AND "ANDRAS IN ACTION"


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What was the total cost of the advertisement appearing February 21, 1975 in the Toronto Star, Toronto Sun and the Toronto Globe and Mail entitled: "Now: It's Shop For A Job" and showing a picture of the Hon. Robert Andras entitled: "Andras In Action" and of this amount how much was paid to each paper?
2.	Did the advertisement appear in any other newspapers and, if so, what papers and at what cost in each case?
3.	What is the name of the advertising agency that handled this matter and what commission did it receive?
Order Paper Questions


Robert Knight Andras: 1. Total cost of advertisements $11,295; Toronto Star, $6,237; Toronto Sun, $900; Toronto Globe and Mail, $4,158.
2.	No.
3.	No advertising agency was involved and no commission was paid.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-NUMBER OF PUBLIC SERVANTS IN CONTINENTAL REGIONS
Mr. Herbert: In the Department of External Affairs for the month of April 1975, what is the budgeted number of public servants to work in the continental regions of (a) North America excluding Canada (b) South America (c) Europe (d) Asia (e) Australasia?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: (a) North America excluding Canada- 235; (b) South America-52; (c) Europe-579; (d) Asia- 135; (e) Australasia-23.


DOCUMENT &quot;MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST&quot;
Mr. Herbert: On Page 4 of the document Members of Parliament and Conflict of Interest is it recorded "In particular it must be acknowledged that the opportunity for an individual Member of Parliament other than a Minister, to alter substantially the course and content of public policies is limited. He is not part of the executive and in a parliamentary system of government the extent of his influence is significantly circumscribed by that fact." and, if so, does the government intend to suggest procedures by which an individual Member of Parliament, other than a Minister, can increase his influence on the course and content of public policies?


Mitchell William Sharp: See page 4 of Green Paper on Members of Parliament and Conflict of Interest, tabled in the House of Commons on November 27, 1974. See page 12 of Votes and Proceedings of the House for September 30, 1974, and Order of Reference of February 21, 1975 to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization.


CBC-TOTAL COST OF NEW LOGO
Mr. MacKay: What was the total cost, promotional, developmental, etc., of the new CBC logo?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows; it has not been customary to require the CBC to supply such details of its internal management and administration.


LIP-KEEPING INFORMATION CONFIDENTIAL
Mr. Cossitt: 1. With reference to the answers to Question Nos. 534, 617, 619 and 1,181 stated in part: "The Department of Manpower and Immigration regards as confidential the names and content of all representations made to the Minister or to the Department" (a) is this a direct attempt by the government to withhold information from Parliament that it

Order Paper Questions
considers politically embarrassing (b) what are the reasons that justify the withholding of such information (c) by what authority was such a decision made to withhold such information (d) what is the name and job designation of the highest ranking individual making the decision to withhold such information (e) on what exact date was such decision made?
2. Is the government concerned that revelation of such information would illustrate political interference with the Local Initiatives Programme?


Robert Knight Andras: 1 (a) No. (b) See answers to Question Nos. 534, 617, 619, and 1,181. (c) See Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fourth edition, citation 181 (3) and 181 (4). (d) Hon. Robert Andras, Minister of Manpower and Immigration, (e) March 3, 1975.
2. No.


QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Mr. Symes: 1.	What was the total amount of money spent in each of the fiscal years 1972-73 and 1973-74 by the Department of Transport on contracts to outside persons and organizations for research, development and other consulting services?
2.	What are the names and addresses of these outside persons and organizations and what amounts of money were involved in each contract?
3.	What was the purpose of each contract and title of each report submitted?
Return tabled.


TREASURY BOARD TRAVEL EXPENDITURES
Mr. Stevens: 1.	In each fiscal year ending March 31, 1972, 1973 and 1974, and for the six month period ending September 30, 1974, what was the aggregate expenditure by the Treasury Board Secretariat for travel abroad by (a) the President of the Treasury Board and his immediate staff (b) departmental staff (c) the staff of boards, commissions, tribunals, Crown corporations or other similar agencies reporting to the Minister (d) others whose expenses were paid in part or in whole directly or indirectly by the government?
2.	In the case of an expenditure in excess of $200 (a) what was the purpose of the foreign trip (b) what was the furthest destination (c) what is the name of the person(s) who took the trip (d) how long was the person(s) outside the country (e) what was the nature of the expenditure (f) how many others were in the party making the trip?
Return tabled.


DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL EXPENDITURES
Mr. Stevens: 1.	In each fiscal year ending March 31, 1972, 1973 and 1974, and for the six month period ending September 30, 1974, what was the aggregate expenditure by the Department of Communications for travel abroad by (a) the Minister of Communications and his immediate staff (b) departmental staff (c) the staff of boards, commissions, tribunals, Crown corporations or other similar agencies reporting to the Minister (d) others whose expenses were paid in part or in whole directly or indirectly by the government?
2.	In the case of an expenditure in excess of $200 (a) what was the purpose of the foreign trip (b) what was the furthest destination (c)

what is the name of the person(s) who took the trip (d) how long was the person(s) outside the country (e) what was the nature of the expenditure (f) how many others were in the party making the trip?
Return tabled.


STUDIES CONDUCTED BY GOVERNMENT ON EFFECT OF CANNABIS USE
Mr. Jelinek: Are any studies being conducted by government agencies or through government grants on the effects of long term cannabis use and, if so (a) what are they (b) what is the dollar value of any such grants?
Return tabled.


&quot;LIFESTYLE CALENDAR&quot;-SUPPLY AND RESPONSIBILITY
Mr. O'Sullivan: 1.	(a) Is the government supplying a "Lifestyle Calendar" as a supplement to newspapers in December and, if so, in what newspapers will this calendar appear (b) what is the total cost of the production of this calendar and the placement of it as a supplement in newspapers
(c)	are any copies other than those appearing in newspapers being produced and, if so, how many and at what cost?
2.	(a) Who is responsible for the proposal of a "Lifestyle Calendar" to be published by the government (b) who approved this proposal (c) what was the total cost of the design of the calendar (d) from which department or departments will the costs of the calendar be met (e) how much is being paid to individuals or companies outside the government for assistance in the production of the calendar (f) to whom are these amounts being paid?
Return tabled.


LIP-ALLOCATIONS 1973-74 AND 1974-75
Mr. Oberle: 1.	What were the census figures of 1971 and the estimated population figures and the percentage of unemployment on which allocations for Local Initiatives Programmes were based (a) in 1973-74 (b) in 1974-75?
2.	What were the amounts of money allocated in (a) 1973-74 (b) 1974-75 for the constituencies of (i) Coast Chilcotin (ii) Kamloops-Cariboo (iii) Skeena (iv) Prince George-Peace River?
Return tabled.


NATIONAL WAGE PARITY FOR GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What is the current estimated payroll cost to the federal treasury on an annual basis for the adoption of national wage parity for
government employees?
2.	How many people would be affected, by classification and by region, should the present policy of paying regional rates be abolished?
3.	What would be the additional costs for fringe benefits, employer contributions to pension plans, UIC, etc., should national wage parity for government employees be adopted in dollar terms and as a percentage of the additional wage bill?
Return tabled.


CNR FREIGHT CAR DERAILMENTS
Mr. Carter: 1. How many rail freight car derailments occurred in Newfoundland in the past three years and on what dates did they occur?

2.	What has been the total cost to CNR of the derailments in Newfoundland during that period, including repairs and claims?
3.	Are all repairs and maintenance on CNR's rolling stock in Newfoundland undertaken by CNR personnel in Newfoundland and, if not, what percentage of the work is undertaken outside of the Province and for what reason?
Return tabled.


CONSTRUCTION OF POST OFFICE IN SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	How many revenue post offices were constructed in the Province of Saskatchewan during the past six years?
2.	How many post offices were constructed in the Province of Saskatchewan in the years 1954 to 1964?
3.	What was the revenue for each of the post offices in the Province of Saskatchewan during the past fiscal year?
Return tabled.


TRIPS MADE BY MR. N. J. CASTONGUAY, 1973-75
Mr. Blackburn: 1.	During the fiscal years 1973-74 and 1974-75 to date, how many trips outside Ottawa were made at public expense by Mr. N. J. Castonguay, the Representation Commissioner?
2.	For each such trip (a) what were the dates of departure and return (b) what place or places were visited (c) what was the purpose of the trip (d) what was the specific form of transportation used?
3.	For each such trip, what expenses were claimed by Mr. Castonguay for (a) transportation (b) hotel accommodation (c) food (d) incidentals?
4.	For each such trip, what were the names and positions of other government employees who accompanied Mr. Castonguay and, in each case, what expenses were claimed by them?
5.	For each such trip (a) what were the names of persons other than government employees who accompanied Mr. Castonguay at public expense (b) in what capacity were they acting (c) what expenses were claimed by them?
Return tabled.


NUMBER OF BANDS ON SERVICE IN CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mr. Howie: 1.	(a) How many bands are on full-time service in the Canadian Armed Forces (b) what are their names and locations?
2.	(a) How many bands are in the militia (b) what are their names and locations?
3.	Are there any other musical groups which receive assistance from the Department of National Defence?
Return tabled.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with regard to questions Nos. 531, 532 and 533, which ask for information concerning the functions of Ivan Head in the Prime Minister's office, the part he is playing in Canadian foreign policy, his relationship with the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and details regarding possible manipulation or management of the news media on behalf of the Prime Minister's public image. These questions have remained unanswered since October 31 of last year, a period of approximately five months. They are straightforward. I believe the information could have been given within a matter of a very few days, and I know of nothing
Oral Questions
to authorize anyone in the Prime Minister's office, including Mr. Head, literally to thumb his nose at the elected parliament of this country when its members ask for information. I would ask the parliamentary secretary if he can give the House any indication of when these questions will be answered?


John Mercer Reid: Soon, Mr. Speaker.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister who will be aware that since he left these shores there has been a substantial number of charges laid in connection with dredging contracts, the basis of which is a massive fraud. Since these charges arose out of an investigation requested by the Solicitor General, who would have received progress reports from time to time as the investigation proceeded, would the Prime Minister tell the House approximately when he was first informed by the Solicitor General of the possibility of such a massive fraud, as has now been reinforced by the charges that have been laid?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, subject to checking my memory and my files, I would say that my knowledge of such events from the Solicitor General was quite recent. He did talk to me in my office about the SIU series of events, but I cannot remember that dredging was brought into the discussion at that point.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, has the Prime Minister caused any investigation to be conducted directly under his own order or direction into the procedures followed by his government with regard to the letting of contracts for dredging, and the supervising of the letting of such contracts, in order to satisfy himself that the procedure followed was proper?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. When I first heard about the possibility of misconduct in that area I did discuss it with the Minister of Transport to ensure myself that he was looking into the files to assure himself that everything had been correctly performed as far as the department was concerned.


DREDGING CONTRACTS-REQUEST FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, in view of the scope of the charges and the possible extent of the conspiracy and fraud here on a national scale, and I emphasize that word "possible"


Oral Questions
because nothing is fact until it is proven, does the Prime Minister really feel he is satisfied in discharging his duties as Prime Minister in pursuing what seems to be a very casual approach to such a possible massive fraud, and can he not assure the House that in the interest of reassuring the Canadian public and reaffirming the good name and openness of his government throughout the country that he will sponsor a public inquiry?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not know to whom or to what the Leader of the Opposition is referring when he mentions a casual approach. Surely, the fact that charges have been laid, verdicts of guilty have already been rendered and the extent to which this inquiry has been conducted and charges laid would seem to prove to the contrary, that neither the police nor the government have been lax or have taken a casual approach to this whole matter. I forget the second part of the question.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A public inquiry.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: At this stage, Mr. Speaker, I have given the matter some thought; I understand it was brought up during my absence. I must say that my conclusions are the same as those stated by the Acting Prime Minister. The progress in the case, the actions of the police at the various levels, the system of justice under which we operate and under which several individuals are now to undergo trial, and the fact that no allegations have been made by the opposition nor by anyone else, are of a nature to show we should not depart from the normal process of criminal justice which exists in Canada and resort to what I have referred to before as an inquisitorial system of justice where you go on fishing expeditions against people who are the subject of no accusation. As a Liberal Government-and I believe this is also the mood of the people and corresponds to the system of justice in our country today-we do not inquire into people unless there is real cause to believe the normal process of ordinary justice is being subverted.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Leader of the Opposition on a final supplementary.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, although I agree with the Prime Minister about-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -preserving the presumption of innocence and the safeguarding of our traditional criminal procedures in respect of presumption of innocence, will the Prime Minister not agree, in respect of an alleged fraud of this scope which concerns institutions as much as people, that he should be concerned rather about all the people of Canada and that, in the course of the public inquiry, our institutions are functioning properly, and, quite apart from the guilt or innocence of particular persons-and I am not going on a fishing expedition with regard to particular persons-does the Prime Minister not recognize and agree that it is unlikely that a fraud of this scale could happen if the institution concerned is func-

tioning properly and in proper relation with the country as a whole, including business.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is not clear to me to what institution the Leader of the Opposition is referring in his last sentence-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The Government of Canada.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -as not functioning properly.


Mr. Hees:: It is the Government of Canada.


DREDGING CONTRACTS-SUGGESTED INQUIRY INTO REASON NO ACTION TAKEN ON AUDITOR GENERAL'S COMPLAINTS
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to follow with a supplementary which I believe is to the point. Complaints about dredging contracts have been raised by the Auditor General for eleven years and the incidents that have led to charges go back to 1969. Is the Prime Minister considering some sort of inquiry, independent or otherwise, to find out why no action was taken and how these incidents that have led to charges of massive misuse of public funds were allowed to happen. In other words, is the Prime Minister prepared to look into this matter in light of the fact that the Auditor General indicated for some time that there was fault in respect of the dredging contracts.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I know of no allegation of wrong doing made by the Auditor General. Insofar as the present incidents are concerned, the Solicitor General, in his statement tonight, will make clear before a committee of the House that from the very first, when information concerning possible wrong doing was brought to our attention, all the various ministers involved including the Solicitor General, the Minister of Transport and the RCMP have acted with great diligence, and I would say with the greatest success, which would seem to indicate that the institution to which the Leader of the Opposition just referred is functioning rather well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


DREDGING CONTRACTS-KNOWLEDGE OF MEMBERS OF GOVERNMENT OF POSSIBILITY OF FRAUD
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Since the Prime Minister feels that an independent inquiry is not necessary, is he prepared to say that he is confident that no one in the government or in any agency or department of the government had any idea that possibly a massive fraud was going on until the fall of 1972?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak for everyone at every level of the government, but I am prepared to say that certainly no one in the cabinet knew and, by virtue of my confidence in the public service of Canada, I would venture to say that no one in the public service knew either. That is why I


think we must commend the RCMP for having done such a spendid job in bringing these facts to light.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


DREDGING CONTRACTS-GOVERNMENT VIEW OF NEED FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY RATHER THAN CHARGES UNDER CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. In raising the question I want also to assure the Prime Minister that we in our party want to avoid an inquisitorial approach to this question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: It is for that reason that I wish to put the following question to the Prime Minister. In view of the broadness of scope of the Inquiries Act, which is on the statute books of Canada, and the narrowness of scope of the Criminal Code, and in view of the broadness of the connections of the men who have been charged, not only with other companies which have contracts with other government departments but have contracts at senior levels with the governing party in Canada, is it the Prime Minister's view that public confidence in the institution of democratic politics and, more particularly, in the institution of this parliament, can be maintained through an inquiry that will take place exclusively within the framework of the Criminal Code of Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The short answer to that is yes, Mr. Speaker. It is true that that confidence must be maintained, and the answer is yes, full stop. I was going on to say that it is true that the Inquiries Act does have a much broader scope and this government has not hesitated to use that scope, for instance, in setting up boards to investigate prices and the Berger commission. That type of action is very much in line with the government's approach when it is useful to shed full light on objective facts. But when we get into the area of possible misbehaviour, and areas which relate to the integrity of individual Canadians, our approach is quite the opposite. I think that the law makers of this country, and indeed of Great Britain, who set the pattern for the criminal justice which we practice, were very conscious of the fact that they were making the scope of the Criminal Code narrow because they wanted the burden of proof not to lie with the defendant but with the state, and that is our approach.


POSSIBLE INVESTIGATION OF COMPANIES CONNECTED WITH DREDGING COMPANIES
John Edward Broadbent: My supplementary question is for the Solicitor General. In his answer in the House on Friday to a question put by me, the minister indicated that he did not know at that time if the other companies with which the 14 individuals who have been charged in the recent dredging scandal have been involved, and which are not connected directly with the dredging business but which have other business with the government, were being investigated. He undertook to find out if the other dealings of these companies were
Oral Questions
being investigated and report back to the House. Is he in a position to do that?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have checked on that and I must give the answer that I gave before to questions of this nature, namely, that we do not reveal publicly who is being investigated or where the investigation is taking place. That is all I can say.


John Edward Broadbent: I do not know whether, in light of the minister's answer, I can make my question any more precise. Is the minister saying that he will not be able to inform the House of the activities of these 14 individuals who have been charged with other companies which have had contracts and other business dealings with the government in the past? Can he tell us, now that information is out in the open, whether the activities of these other companies doing business with the government have been investigated?


William Warren Allmand: That is right. Twelve companies were charged the other day and 14 individuals. The hon. member has asked me whether other companies, with which these individuals might be associated, are being subject to investigation as well. I am telling him that we do not reveal publicly what individuals or companies are being investigated until charges are laid. It would not be respecting the civil rights of these individuals or companies to reveal in advance when they are subject to investigation because those investigations might bring negative results. On the other hand, if we are really investigating them, we do not want to let them know publicly that we are investigating them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PROPOSED INVESTIGATION OF DREDGING CONTRACTS BACK TO 1963
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a final supplementary question on a related matter. Another question asked of the Solicitor General by me last Friday referred to the Auditor General's reports in the 1960's in which it was documented that there were overruns of many millions of dollars in dredging contracts. I asked the minister if those specific contracts and payments which have been undertaken and made in the past were being investigated. Can the minister tell us now what is the answer to that question?


William Warren Allmand: Yes, I did refer that to the RCMP and they told me that they have no reason to believe at this point that criminal offences were committed in connection with the contracts mentioned. However, they intend to look at the Auditor General's reports once more and report to me in due course.
4152


Oral Questions


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister whom I welcome to Parliament upon his return from a trip to Europe.
During his stay in Europe, while he was visiting five or six countries of the European Economic Community to find markets for Canadian trade, the economic situation here did not improve, unemployment and prices continued to rise. Does the Prime Minister intend to meet, in the near future, representatives of Canadian organizations to find a solution, not in Europe, but in Canada, to strengthen our national economy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I should like to thank the hon. member for his kind words of welcome. May I point out to him that I chose to come back on St. Patrick's Day and that it took an Irishman like to him to welcome me back upon my return.
As to his question, may I reassure the hon. member by telling him that the type of contacts he suggests have already been made in many ways. The Minister of Finance and other ministers have had the opportunity of meeting several representatives of various organizations. The cabinet as such was also given the advice and suggestions of the Chamber of Commerce quite recently; we are to meet the Canada Labour Council very soon.
On a higher level, Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. member that the federal government has invited the provincial governments to a federal-provincial conference on the economy to be held right after Easter.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Prime Minister.
As a result of his trip in Europe which we have closely followed, does the government leader feel that the European situation is such that the Canadian people must necessarily be punished on the pretext that this is an international issue and that our country is almost helpless? Does the Prime Minister not think that, without being prejudicial to other countries, Canada can surely manage to act according to its own decisions, irrespective of what is going on in European countries?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The government feels that we can and should act to improve our conditions irrespective of what is happening in European countries. This is perhaps why, according to the OECD statistics, the economic performance of Canada in 1974 was the best of all industrialized countries. The countries which I visited did not fail to congratulate us for it.


POSSIBILITY OF OBTAINING CONTRACTUAL STATUS WITH EEC-GOVERNMENT POSITION
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister obviously did not seem to believe that his trip to Europe-lasting two and a half weeks and including visits to a number of countries- or the results obtained were of sufficient importance to report to the House, which surprised me greatly, I would ask him whether, having visited these countries, he has any reason for believing that Canada will be awarded contractual status with the EEC in the reasonably near future. If he does, what are the reasons for so believing, and when does he expect to be in a position to make such an announcement?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure the hon. member is correct in indicating a lack of success on our part. Perhaps an indication would be better drawn from the fact that we are forty five minutes into the question period, and this question, along with that of the hon. member for Temiscamingue, is the first which has been asked.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In regard to the contractual link, Mr. Speaker, I would report that the countries which I visited all indicated that they supported the Canadian objective of establishing a contractual link with the Common Market. They gave support to the negotiations which are going on and the exchanges which are going on between the Community and Canada, one meeting already having taken place about a month ago in Ottawa and two more being scheduled before the report is made to the Council of Ministers.


George Harris Hees: As the Prime Minister did not give any reasons for having confidence or for believing that we would be awarded a contractual link, and as he did not give any indication when he expected that such a link could be announced, could he at least explain to us-he seems to have had difficulty explaining to the countries he visited-just how such a contractual link would work in practice? Very briefly could he tell the country?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Even if the Prime Minister were willing to make that explanation, surely this period is not the time to make it.


George Harris Hees: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that after a trip lasting 17 or 18 days visiting six countries the Prime Minister gives us no information whatsoever regarding his talks with these countries about the possibility of obtaining this contractual link, could the Prime Minister at least take the country into his confidence and tell us how the skiing was?


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the apparent success achieved by the mediator, Mr. Kelly, in reaching accord in negotiations with employers and longshoremen in B.C.-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Would you start again?


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I think the right hon. gentleman has not been able to hear. In view of the apparent success achieved by the mediator, Mr. Kelly, in reaching accord in negotiations with employers and longshoremen in B.C., and in view of cautious optimism being expressed today with respect to the public service dispute, can the Prime Minister advise the House when the government expects grain movements to be resumed, and has the government put any deadline on the length of the continued negotiations before taking action?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.


DATE OF MINISTER'S RETURN TO DUTY-POSSIBILITY OF APPOINTING FULL TIME MINISTER
John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, can the Prime Minister advise when the House and the country can expect the government to ensure that we have the services of a full time labour minister and whether and how soon the present Minister of Labour will be resuming his responsibilities?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we have an Acting Minister of Labour who has done the job very well, just as we have had an Acting Prime Minister.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, it may not make any difference, but surely the national interest and the principles of responsible government demand an end to this game of hide and seek. If the present minister cannot return, will the Prime Minister assure the country that a full time minister will be appointed, and when?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The question in its form is hypothetical, Mr. Speaker, but the answer would be yes.


Mr. Speaker:: I will recognize the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona followed by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. What
Oral Questions
steps is the Prime Minister taking to relate his speech in London last week on the need for restructuring relations with the developing nations with his instructions to the interdepartmental committee on economic relations with developing countries so that a program of action by Canada is obtained?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member seems to indicate his knowledge of that interdepartmental committee. This is precisely the subject it is working at: adding to the many initiatives this government has taken, including the stance of the Secretary of State for External Affairs at the Commonwealth Food Conference in London last week, to ensure that greater justice is brought to the developing nations.


PROPOSED ESTABLISHMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister a further question. In order for members of parliament to assist in the development of the Canadian position at the special session on development at the United Nations General Assembly next September, would the Prime Minister provide a reference to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence so that a subcommittee on international development could be set up to deal with these matters which are vital to the security and stability of the world?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am told that that can be done now on the authority which the House has. I certainly would welcome any contribution to this very vital area by members of all parties, and if the hon. member or members of his party have concrete suggestions to make, I would very sincerely welcome them. I think this is an area where Canada must take action.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is related to the question regarding the longshoremen's strike on the west coast which ended this morning. It is addressed to the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. Will the minister inform the House when the formal contract between the foremen's union and their employers ends, so that we may know at what time to expect the next strike.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, the minister was prepared to answer.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I was prepared to say that I think it would be unfortunate to comment along those lines in regard to negotiations going on at the present time.
2 8996-5814


Oral Questions PUBLIC BUILDINGS


HANGAR AT HAMILTON AIRPORT-POSSIBILITY OF RENTAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR CANADIAN WARPLANE HERITAGE ASSOCIATION
Mr. Gus MacFarlane (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works. I wish to make an inquiry on behalf of the Canadian Warplane Heritage Association. This organization has done an outstanding job in the restoration of Canadian warplanes.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member wishes to make that kind of inquiry, he ought to do it directly rather than make an expose on the association.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Ask the question.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: Is there any reason why they would have to purchase the hangar which they operate at the Hamilton airport? Are there other arrangements whereby they could rent that hangar, or must they vacate it?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the policy of the Department of Public Works is to make available for community purposes real estate property which is no longer required by the government service. In this case, while we would not wish to alienate the land, I think arrangements for its use by the community can be made.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also addressed to the Prime Minister and follows upon the question of the hon. member for Edmon-ton-Strathcona. The Prime Minister, if I may say so, spoke eloquently in London about the need for a comprehensive restructuring program of fiscal and monetary trade policies in order to help relieve the problems of poverty in the developing world. Has the Prime Minister also noticed a report of the National Council of Welfare on the welfare of children in Canada to the effect that 1.66 million children under 16 years old in Canada live under the stigma of poverty. I ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement in this House setting out, perhaps not in detail but in a general way, what the government proposes to do to relieve poverty in the world at large and poverty in this country in particular.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the government made its over-all approach to the problem of welfare known to the country in the paper published by my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, two years ago. The hon. member knows that this approach is being discussed with every provincial government, that progress has already been
[Mr. Lang.l
made and steps of a legislative nature taken. Quite frankly, the hon. member surprises me if he is suggesting that, because we are concerned about the problem of poverty in the world, there is some reason for me, in a sense, to detract from that problem by making a statement here on another question. The hon. member seems to be trying-


An hon. Member:: Practice what you preach.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We practice what we preach, Mr. Speaker. I, personally, believe that the approach illustrated by the interest of the Conservative party to these problems of the world concern is more progressive than that indicated by the hon. member.


Francis Andrew Brewin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister has put entirely false words in my mouth.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Francis Andrew Brewin: I have never suggested for a single moment that we should not be concerned about the problems of poverty throughout the world, and the Prime Minister knows it. His jibe at me is unworthy of the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Andrew Brewin: If the Prime Minister says that the government-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: Stick in there, Andy!


ALLEGED REQUEST OF PROVINCES FOR ACTION ON GUARANTEED ANNUAL INCOME-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Prime Minister, if I may be permitted to ask it, is this: if the government is so concerned about the poverty of people in Canada, particularly children, how is it that the request of the provincial welfare ministers to progress with the guaranteed income policy, which would affect and relieve poverty, apparently has been laid aside by this government.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if I may comment on the hon. member's comment, the preamble to his question was indeed unworthy of the interest he has shown in the past in this and other questions, as he prefaced the question on poverty in Canada with a question on poverty in the world.


INQUIRY WHETHER IMPORTATION OF UNITED STATES POULTRY AUTHORIZED BY GOVERNMENT
Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
On March 3, 1975,1 asked the following question:
Since the Americans export into Canada, live chickens ready to be slaughtered, can the minister tell the House whether Canadian importers must apply for permits from his department to import that live poultry?
The minister answered then:
... I will be pleased to make inquiries and let the hon. member know the answer.
Could he please us today and give us this answer, Mr. Speaker?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I think there have been discussions between representatives of the two governments involved, and I believe this matter is close to solution. I cannot tell the hon. member whether it will be necessary to obtain import permits at the present time.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the minister's many comments that he is now evaluating many domestic and international economic factors, has the minister set any date beyond which he will not go in his review without making a statement to the House on the state of the economy and, in particular, a statement on whether he is satisfied that the November 18 budgetary provisions are all that are needed to deal with our high unemployment and inflation rates. I ask this, Mr. Speaker, as there are now only 12 parliamentary days left before the Minister of Finance plans a trip abroad.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, no. We had a very thorough discussion of the economy on Thursday, thanks to the motion put forward by the NDP.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Considering the minister's answer, and as he is reviewing all of these economic factors, can he tell the House if the government has any budgetary contingency plan available which could be produced quickly if economic trends do not improve.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we are reviewing matters on a daily basis.
Oral Questions


ALLEGED ARAB BOYCOTT OF CERTAIN CANADIAN COMPANIES-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: May I address a final supplementary question to the Minister of Finance in connection with his anticipated trip to the Middle East. Is the minister aware that an Arab boycott list contains the names of some 150 Canadian companies with which Arab nations may not deal? If so, does he intend to take up this matter with certain Arab countries which he will visit, in order to secure agreement for the lifting of the boycott?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have already dealt fully with that question in response to a query put forward by the hon. member for Windsor West.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. As the minister announced outside the House on January 17 that he was setting up an Air Command Headquarters, could the minister inform the House if a study similar to the Land Force Use Study was done before this major decision was announced.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, no, there was no study equivalent to the Land Force study, but the announcement was made following the recommendation of the Chief of Staff.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue. In light of the widespread nature of alleged tax evasion charges against persons and corporations involved in the Hamilton Harbour dredging scandal, will the minister inform the House whether he has caused his department to become active in investigating this aspect of the matter. If so, how is it being done, and for how long has it been going on.


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, there is an active special investigation branch in the Department of National Revenue. Because of the confidentiality sections of the Income Tax Act, it is not appropriate to reveal who is to be investigated. There is no better way to tip off those being investigated than to reveal the nature of an investigation. As the hon. member knows, two charges have been laid against individuals and six companies relating to tax evasion in this matter. If other charges are to be laid, they will be laid in due course.

Oral Questions


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I thank the minister for his answer. I gather that the minister's department is conducting an investigation. In its investigations, how far back in time will the department delve in looking into this particular aspect?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the investigation has been carried out with the co-operation of the RCMP on any information which we have which warrants an investigation under the Income Tax Act.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION
Mr.   Sean@: Mr. Speaker, before addressing my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration may I extend to you, and, indeed, to all members of the House, both to those who enjoy an Irish heritage and those who wish they did, a happy St. Patrick's Day.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. O'Sullivan:: Mr. Speaker, I hope to have some Irish luck with the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. On February 19 I asked the minister to table a report submitted by York Advertising Limited of Ottawa which had cost the Canadian taxpayer $3,500. The report concerned the Unemployment Insurance Commission and alleged that the UIC has been considered as a dumping ground for incompetents. The minister noted my representation. In view of widespread concern, has the minister decided to table this report?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I have not fully examined that matter. I think I have had some reports on it, but I will take another look at it.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport with regard to an aircraft accident involving a DC3 aircraft which took place at Rimouski, Quebec in May, 1973. The report has just been released. In this report, it states, and I quote:
The carrier did not comply with the Ministry of Transport standards in pilot training, dispatch, flight watch,-
It further states the Ministry of Transport had been aware of the carrier's non-compliance for some time but had not effectively enforced their rules and regulations. One of the main problems seemed to be that the technical documents aboard this aircraft were all in French and the

crew could only speak English. Will the minister inform the House what he has done to improve inspection procedures since this air fatality?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, this is one case we are looking at in depth in order to determine what deficiency there was in the inquiry. What happened in Rimouski is surely not acceptable to the government. I agree with the hon. member on this.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark - Renf re w-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary to an earlier question. The Prime Minister indicated he had talked with the Minister of Transport to see how the investigation with regard to dredging problems was proceeding. Can the Prime Minister inform the House whether it was shortly after his talk with the Minister of Transport that the minister wrote and asked for an investigation by the RCMP?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I could not
say exactly, Mr. Speaker. Certainly the first time the Minister of Transport talked to me about his concerns regarding the harbour situation in Hamilton goes back to the period after the 1972 election, probably in December, January or thereabouts.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Frank Maine (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that the jointly-funded project of the Canadian Department of Agriculture, industry, and the University of Guelph to grow peanuts on the unused lands of tobacco farms in southwestern Ontario is in imminent jeopardy of collapse because of Ontario's squeeze on university funding, will the minister increase the federal contribution from the new crop development board to this project and thereby help those farmers who are experiencing decreased incomes from tobacco?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that we received the submission from the University of Guelph. I made a submission on what I think should be done about it because I feel this crop has tremendous potential in certain parts of Canada where its crop can be produced. This product is highly nutritional and contains protein, so, I think it has some potential in Canada.


FISHERIES
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of State (Fisheries). Is the minister yet in the position to announce tuna fishing regulations for the coming season in the Gulf of St. Lawrence? As the minister knows, this is becoming very urgent for those who charter fishing vessels for this kind of sports fishing. They need to know immediately what the decision will be.


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to inform the hon. member that this very morning I approved the regulations, with one exception. That is the problem of supervision of one area. We are trying to introduce flexibility in the regulations in answer to the representations of the fishermen and charter boat operators. I think this will be very satisfactory.


FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW ACT
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister relating to his trip to Europe. The Prime Minister is reported to have assured German industrialists they should not be concerned about the provisions of the Foreign Investment Review Act when investing in this country. Did the Prime Minister give that assurance to the industrialists and, if so, why?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I gave them the assurance that the law and the policy of the government would be applied. The general principle, as the hon. member knows, is that foreign investments are indeed encouraged in Canada, providing they can be to the demonstrable benefit of Canada. That is our general approach to foreign investment in Canada.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Will the Prime Minister advise when the government will be proclaiming Part II of the act, the part dealing with new investment?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That will be announced in due course, Mr. Speaker.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. Perhaps it might be more properly directed to the Prime Minister. It is with reference to a letter of complaint made some time ago by Mr. Campbell and apparently received by the former Solicitor General, now the Minister of Supply and
Metric Conversion
Services, through a Mr. Cameron. Is the Prime Minister prepared to now table that correspondence so that it will coincide with the statement we will hear tonight in
committee?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the question is addressed to me. I have no such correspondence.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would the Solicitor General be prepared to now table that correspondence?


William Warren Allmand: No, Mr. Speaker, not now. The letter from Mr. Campbell was a confidential letter to the former Solicitor General. I will deal with all that this evening. We will put all the facts on record.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I ask the Solicitor General whether the reply by Mr. Cameron, the executive assistant to the former Solicitor General, was also confidential?


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Alastair William Gillespie: That the	House of Commons approve the government's
program of guideline dates for metric conversion;
And that a message be sent to the Senate informing Their Honours that this House has adopted a resolution approving a program of guideline dates for metric conversion, and requesting Their Honours to unite with this House in the approval of the same by filling up the blanks in the resolution with the words "Senate and".
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking today on a matter that is fundamental to the long-term health and prosperity of the Canadian economy-the metric system of weights and measures. It is my pleasure to introduce to parliament today a joint resolution for a program of guideline dates for metric conversion in Canada. Some members may recall that I mentioned on March 11 last year that the government intended to introduce such a resolution.
In taking this step, the government wants to emphasize the importance of reaching a national consensus on the objective of a metric Canada by the decade of the 1980s. When my predecessor tabled in this House the white paper on metric conversion in January of 1970, a little over five years ago, it received the support of all party leaders. The federal government then launched the national metric conversion program through establishment by order in council in June of 1971 of the Metric Commission. Much has been accomplished and is being accomplished by this commission. Commission members have consulted and collaborated with national industry associations, consum-


Metric Conversion
er groups, unions, professional bodies and provincial and federal government departments.
They have begun a process of continuing investigation, planning, scheduling and implementation. Some 200 organizations in all parts of Canada are taking part in this metric conversion program which stems from the first meeting of the Metric Commission in January of 1972. The 18 metric commissioners appointed by the cabinet have enlisted nearly 1,000 persons from all sectors of the Canadian economy. These people have volunteered to serve on steering and sector committees which report to the Metric Commission. They are contributing their expert knowledge and professional skills to this important program. Their work in the investigation phase is now leading to integrated plans to transform their sectors from a measurement system which has now been abandoned by all but a very few nations of the world to one which is universally recognized, the International System of Units, SI.
The program of guideline dates which I will describe has the unanimous support of this nationwide committee structure and of the governments of all the provinces. Canada is joining the other members of the Englishspeaking world now converting and other major trading nations which are already metric in the use of this common and convenient measuring system.
Our most important trading partner, the United States, is also moving in this direction. Although in the last Congress metric legislation in the House of Representatives was set aside on a procedural question, Congress did authorize expenditure of $10 million a year for four years for metric education in schools. In this session Congress specifically recognized the increasing use of metric measures in the United States and the fact that these measures would inevitably become the dominant system of weights and measures in that country.
In the present Congress bills to implement the recommendation of the U.S. metric report have already been submitted. A bill sponsored by the administration and designed to appease objections raised by labour and small business is ready to be put forward. There is reasonable confidence that such a bill can be passed before adjournment in August of the present session of Congress. In the meantime, many major companies in the United States have embarked on programs for metric conversion. These programs are going forward without reference to action, or lack of action, in Congress.
To co-ordinate this development in industry, the United States has established the American National Metric Council. This council has more than 1,300 subscribers drawn from industries, association and individuals and expects to double its membership this year. A widespread committee structure has been established and there is frequent communication at all levels between the Metric Commission organization here in Canada and the American National Metric Council. Discussions have also been held with executive departments and agencies of the U.S. federal government. They are anxious to know of the Canadian plans in their areas of responsibility. Every effort will be made to co-ordinate work between the two

countries so as to obtain the greatest benefits for the Canadian program.
To develop an economy in which the use of the International System of Units is normal procedure, the Metric Commission has recommended, and the government has approved, a four phase program. These phases are: first, investigation-to determine what needs to be done; second, planning-to identify the sequence of activities and the relationships among things to be accomplished; third, scheduling-to assign specific target dates to planned events and to co-ordinate these between and among sectors; fourth, implementation-during which the actions to be performed are carried out as planned and according to schedule.
The following guideline dates for metric conversion in Canada which I propose for the approval of the House today correspond to the four major phases I have just mentioned. The investigation phase is now essentially completed. The remaining program dates are therefore proposed as follows: the planning phase, which began in 1973, is to extend through this year; the scheduling phase is to be completed in 1976; the implementation phase, which we expect to become significant this year, will reach a peak of activity by the years 1977 and 1978-it should be substantially completed by the end of 1980, at which time metric measures will be used by all Canadians for all normal commercial and legal purposes.
We shall be organizing three pilot projects in retail store conversion. The cities of Sherbrooke, Quebec, Peterborough, Ontario, and Kamloops, British Columbia, will pioneer metric, probably in 1978. All retail store scales will be changed to metric in those cities at that time. Meanwhile, many products will appear on the shelves to be sold in metric quantities. I repeat that the guideline dates which I have just mentioned are the result of nationwide consultation with governments, industry, consumers and labour. With the approval of hon. members, they will constitute the basic framework for a national metric conversion program.
Many letters urging the adoption of this program have been received from national associations. The Canadian Manufacturers' Association, for instance, writes:
The association believes that the publication of these guidelines will be a useful encouragement to business to proceed with the planning and preparation needed for the proper integration of the conversion process.
From the Canadian Chamber of Commerce we hear:
The objective of completing substantially the conversion program by 1980 is a worth-while goal, considering the already wide international usage of the metric system and the pace of development of conversion in the United States.
The Canadian Federation of Retail Grocers writes:
We believe the commission's approach is a reasonable one and deserves all the support we can give it.
Both the Canadian Nurses' Association and the Association of Nurses of the province of Quebec have given their unqualified support to the guideline dates program, and the Canadian Office Products Association "finds the dates as outlined acceptable to all aspects of our industry." The Canada Grains Council has made public its scheme for the grains trade, and this conforms fully with the guideline dates I am proposing. The interests of the Canadian con-

sumer are being well represented by the Consumers Association of Canada which is taking an active interest in conversion plans. The association's influence has already resulted in some products now appearing in metric-size packaging.
We expect that consumers will gradually become accustomed to metric measures as products and services are increasingly made available in metric units. Already, weather reports on radio give temperatures in degrees Celsius, and from April of this year temperatures will be given in Celsius only. Rainfall in millimetres and snow in centimetres will follow, hopefully in another season.
The views I have quoted represent only a small sample of the support the metric system has received and is receiving. There is every indication that the vast majority of organizations in Canadian society are committed to the eventual use of the metric system and support the proposed program of guideline dates. Many Canadian firms have already begun investigating and planning for metric conversion. They are now awaiting parliamentary approval of these dates before synchronizing their schedules with others. In the public sector, federal government department and all provincial governments have created interdepartmental committees to co-ordinate metric conversion.
It is of the utmost importance that all Canadians move in concert to maintain the momentum of the four-phase program. To this end, an information program is now under way to explain the changes contemplated and the manner in which they will affect each one of us. During the coming year, increasing numbers of packaged goods will carry declarations of content in millilitres and litres, in grams and kilograms. By March, 1976, all pre-packaged goods will carry metric markings and many will be packed in metric sizes. Hon. members have already seen some road signs giving distances in kilometres. By September of 1977 it is expected that all across Canada we shall see road signs with distances in kilometers and permitted speeds in kilometres per hour. Already this year the speedometers on many automobiles are marked in kilometers per hour as well as the familiar miles per hour.
Canadians in the labour force will also be made aware of changes initiated in industry, commerce and public services. Suitable training programs are helping them to appreciate the simplicity and convenience of the metric system. In many schools the metric system is being taught at the elementary level as the basic system of measurement. Thus, young Canadians now at elementary schools will, on graduation from their secondary or university studies, be living and working with all other Canadians in a metric world.
Hon. members may be aware that a number of companies have already converted or are well along in the conversion process. For example, the Price Pulp and Paper Company of Newfoundland has moved to the production of newsprint on a metric basis. This mill produces exclusively for offshore markets and it has switched its whole operation, including billing and order forms, to metric. They experienced no significant problem in mill conversion.
Metric Conversion
The Steel Company of Canada has gone metric, too, in its new pipe mill at Welland, Ontario. The machinery of this mill is entirely metric and produces welded pipe to both inch-pound and metric specifications. The new steelmaking facilities being developed on the shores of Lake Erie at Nanticoke are being designed exclusively in metric terms and will be an entirely metric operation. At Varennes, Quebec, ASEA Limited, the big Swedish producer of heavy electrical equipment, had been producing entirely metric products, using local labour, for the past year. The working force was trained by the company and they have had no difficulty in maintaining efficient operation and production.
Metric conversion is not unique to Canada; it is nothing new. Canada will be drawing on the experience of Great Britain, South Africa and Australia in the conversion process. In Great Britain, for example, many large industries have converted. Experience has been generally favourable. As a matter of fact, in nearly all cases costs of conversion were very susbtantially lower than original estimates and difficulties in training the work force were minimal. Many British industries have achieved very substantial economies in production by using the opportunity of metric conversion to effect a rationalization and sim-plication of their operations. Some difficulties are currently being experienced in Britain due to delays in carrying through the program at the level of the ultimate consumer. This has resulted in a need to operate for an extended period in both systems.
The lack of a clear commitment in consumer related aspects of the U.K. program has probably been the major inhibiting factor. But these difficulties have been recognized by responsible officials in the United Kingdom and they are directing attention to ensuring that enabling legislation is passed in the consumer goods sector and that there is a broad-based commitment to the national program in both the private and public sectors.
In South Africa, the experience has been good. After a seven-year program of conversion, no significant difficulties have been experienced. Industries report that drawing office staffs, once they had worked in metric for a few weeks, would not go back to working in Imperial units. This is because of the greater simplicity of working in metric units and the relative freedom from error.
Australia is about two years ahead of Canada in conversion. Implementation is now in full swing. Much of agriculture has already been converted without any adverse reaction. All transport tariffs and customs and excise tariffs were placed on a metric basis last year. Some 50 per cent of grocery products on the shelves of Australian stores are now in metric-size packages. This has proved entirely acceptable to the consuming public. Speed limits and road distance signs were converted to metric units in May of 1973. The conversion was accomplished without a hitch.
Here in Canada, to draw attention to metric conversion the Metric Commission had developed a distinctive logo. It is promoting the use of this logo to identify Canadian products in metric size or design as well as texts or announcements making correct use of metric units and advertisements of Canadian metric products. During the past year the commission has approved a growing number

Metric Conversion
of applications from interests wishing to use this logo to identify their metric products. The commission expects use of the logo will become widespread and hopes to promote in the general public an immediate recognition of it as an indicator of metric conversion in Canada.
Undoubtedly metric conversion will involve costs. However, these costs will be spread over a period of time as industries proceed to implementation of their plans. As I have said, implementation is not expected to reach its peak until 1977-78 and will be spread over a period of years. Concern has also been expressed that the cost of conversion might impose an undue hardship on some small businesses. In view of this concern, the cabinet has approved a program of loans and loan guarantees to be available to small businesses, to be called the small business metric conversion assistance program. These loans would cover specific eligible costs of metric conversion by small businesses. In this context, small business will include farming and fishing enterprises. Such loan assistance would be available to businesses facing special financing difficulties resulting from metric conversion when such businesses were unable to obtain financing from commercial lending institutions. I expect the federal Business Development Bank to play the main role in this assistance plan for small enterprises.
My department, working in co-operation with the Treasury Board and the Department of Finance, is developing detailed criteria and administrative procedures for this program. However, we must keep in mind that costs of conversion are one-time costs while the benefits of conversion are continuing. They will be apparent in increased trade opportunities and in efficiencies which will result from standardization and rationalization. I cannot say too strongly that any delay in the program of metric conversion will only postpone realization of benefits and increase costs. Every instrument or device now being designed to Imperial units is a further liability for eventual cost of conversion.
What about information on this program, Mr. Speaker? Where can the ordinary Canadian find out what is going to happen? The information is being and will continue to be disseminated through the ten regional offices of my department and through the regional offices of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Furthermore, metric information will be disseminated by the federal Business Development Bank when it starts operation. We are also receiving excellent co-operation from the provinces and each province will have a metric co-ordinator.
I have been assured that these offices can cope with present and anticipated inquiries concerning metric conversion. The commission has produced many booklets and films. To help tell the metric story, there is also a speaker's bureau and more than 50 seminars have already been held in cities and centres across Canada. A series of seminars called "Metric and You" is currently being conducted by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Metric Commission in co-operation with local chambers of commerce and provincial chambers. Hon. members will recall that when the white paper on metric conversion was tabled in this House in January of 1970 there was unanimous support for the principle that metric conversion is not only inevitable but in the national interest.

The legal basis for using the metric or decimal system was first introduced in the Weights and Measures Act of 1873. This was reaffirmed and brought up to date with the incorporation of SI-the simplest and most modern version of the metric system-in the Weights and Measures Act passed by this House in April of 1971, 98 years later.
Against this background, I ask all hon. members for their approval of the guideline dates which I have outlined. This will ensure that Canada keeps pace with an already largely metric world. This program is the subject of the resolution that I now place before the House. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 41(2) I should like to table, in both official languages, a statement entitled "Program of guideline dates for metric conversion".


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. So far as I can see, what the minister has in his hand is a very short document. I wonder whether it should not be printed as an appendix to Hansard so it will be there for people to see.
e (1530)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Is it agreed that the document referred to be made an appendix to Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: For above-mentioned document, see appendix]


Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to lead off this debate for the official opposition and put forth our position in the clearest possible terms on metric conversion in Canada. The motion presented on the order paper in the name of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) simply states that the House of Commons approves the government's program of guideline dates for metric conversion, and there follows the usual reference to the other place. The minister has set forth the schedule and has asked us to concur.
I think I should say at the outset that we supported metric conversion when it was introduced by order in council and the white paper, and that is our position today: we still support it, but we have reservations and I hope to place them on the record during this debate. I hope the minister will take note of them and see that something specific is done about them.
Since order in council PC-1971-1145 of June 10, 1971, was passed we have been approving sums of money in the estimates for the metric conversion fund and by the end of this fiscal year the commission will have spent over $7 million. We must ask ourselves what value we have received for the $7 million that will be spent by the end of this fiscal year.
Let me say again that we in the official opposition support the principle of metric conversion. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) stated our position which appears in Hansard of July 16, 1970, at page 2470. He gave our support to the principle of metric conversion. The hon. member for Peace River also mentioned the fact that


the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean) had in 1970 put forward a private member's bill calling for a metric system inquiry commission. He also stated that the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), when he was prime minister, had his ministers undertake studies in this field.
I have taken this opportunity to record again the fact that the official opposition has had a keen interest in the metric system for a number of years. We supported the principle in 1970 and we support the principle of metric conversion today. Having said that, we do not intend to let the matter pass without recording in this House our dissatisfaction with the progress made by the Metric Commission. We want to bring into perspective the position of the Metric Commission today, in 1975, and let the minister know in the strongest possible terms that we are appalled at the lack of progress being made.
I stated that by the end of this fiscal year the Metric Commission will have spent over $7 million. Since 1970 it has produced one annual report and has promised a second report by late 1975. That is atrocious when we consider the amount of money the commission is spending. The commission has not appeared before a standing committee of this House; it has not justified its program, its progress or its expenditures. I know that some members opposite will say we have an opportunity during the consideration of estimates to examine the work of the Metric Commission, but that is a lot of nonsense. We all know how the standing committees are structured and that we have little time under the rules of the House to examine in depth the Metric Commission's program.
The first time I met anyone from the Metric Commission was at a dinner party in the parliamentary diningroom, I think in 1973. Members of the commission brought along a few slides and a projector to put forward a public relations package. One of the slides they put on the screen was a map of Canada which showed that the capital of Manitoba was Edmonton and the capital of Alberta was Winnipeg. Can you imagine anyone coming before a group of parliamentarians and showing a map of Canada that contained such errors? It was incredible, but I think it is also typical of the way the commission operates.
Because of our close ties with the United States, we feel we must phase in our metric conversion with theirs. The minister has said there is a measure of co-operation in respect of lyur metric commission and that of the United States, but I do not think this co-operation is as strong as it might be. From our investigations, United States industry is progressing much faster than Canadian industry in spite of the fact that no legislation is in place at this moment in the United States.
There are problems in respect of road signs and odometers in automobiles to be worked out, to which the minister made reference in his remarks. There is little co-ordination between the provinces and the federal government, in spite of what the minister had to say. Another problem which we have can be related to the considerable amount of across the border travel that takes place. It is imperative, in our view, that we work closely with the United States government and individual state authorities, many of which have metric programs under way, in order to
Metric Conversion
ensure the least possible confusion in the conversion of road signs.
I now want to say a few words about the Metric Commission and its operation. We have spoken to numerous people involved with the Metric Commission, and the general impression we get is that the commission is engaged, basically, in a public relations job. Apparently there is much indecision, lack of leadership and, generally speaking, poor morale. We note that the commission has had considerable staff turnover at all levels. It is our belief that the commission has serious internal problems which stem generally from lack of direction and indecision.
Let us consider the question of conversion, in respect of weather reporting, from Fahrenheit to Celsius. I understand this program was ready to go last summer and a booklet was supposed to have been prepared that should have found its way into the school system last September in order to take advantage of the splash-over effect from students to parents. The date of April 1 was set for the changeover, but on January 13 nothing had really been done: the program was still sitting on the director's desk and the opportunity of using the school system was lost. We understand there was then an attempt to put off the April 1 conversion date and to substitute a later date.
As I say, this is an example of the indecision and lack of direction that permeates the Metric Commission. Many of the commissioners appointed were political appointments, and the director of the Metric Commission suffers from a political appointment without political support. When was the last time hon. members heard any minister of the Crown mention anything about metric conversion? Have we heard any minister mention anything about it? Have we read any ministers' speeches which have contained anything about metric conversion? To my knowledge, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has never made any mention of metric conversion in any of his speeches. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) had two opportunities recently, when he spoke to the Consumers Association of Canada and to the Canadian Construction Association, to mention metric conversion; but not a word was said.
The Consumers Association of Canada, which the minister says is co-operating with the commission, has registered some very serious concerns about metric conversion, but as I understand it the association has received no assurance that its views will be heeded. Let me read a few comments from a letter sent by the association to the minister on January 7, 1975. The association writes:
Participants from our association advise me that at the present time there is a substantial degree of dissatisfaction, and poor morale, within all the sectors of the commission's work in which programs are supposed to be developed for the information and assistance of such final users. It would appear, accordingly, that an early decision on your part to request a comprehensive review of procedures and programs in these areas would be advisable, and would certainly be well received by our own participants, and would, as I am advised, also be well received and receive the co-operation of other participants in these areas.
The letter goes on to state that the Consumers Association of Canada would be prepared to meet with the minister or his officials at any time to discuss these issues and to provide specific examples of policies and procedures


Metric Conversion
which concern them at the moment. This letter, in essence, is saying that the Consumers Association in fact would just as soon pull out of the program, but does not suggest doing that and wishes to make a contribution to it. This is a very interesting letter. So far as I am aware, this association has had no reply from the minister about its concerns.
We have been told that the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs will monitor the packaging industry and retail stores to ensure that the consumer is not the loser. We have had the experience of the British metric conversion where there was evidence that the packaging and retail trades took the opportunity during the conversion to adjust prices upward while at the same time reducing, in some instances, the quantity.
We are not convinced that the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs will be in any way effective in this matter. We have received no reports in this House, so far as I am aware, that there has been any monitoring in respect of other government programs. On several occasions members have put questions to the ministers, the reply has been that the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs will monitor the programs; however, we have not heard anything about this monitoring. I wonder whether it is a dodge used by the government to assure consumers that Big Brother is looking after their best interests.
I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the members of the official opposition will very carefully watch this monitoring. We want to be sure that the experience of Britain is not duplicated in this country. We should not be proceeding by order in council or by resolution; we should be proceeding by means of a bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William James Kempling: We should have a bill which sets out all the details of the program. The guidelines and the program should be laid down so that we may proceed in an orderly fashion. Instead, we have a loosely worded order in council which allows the Metric Commission to proceed as it sees fit. I believe it would have been better to have a bill, to have a full debate and then to have the Metric Commission appear before a committee and reappear each year to justify its program and expenditures. We see in this commission another government body removed from the scrutiny of parliament. We see it as a group that is a law unto itself and which proceeds as it sees fit.
I talked to officials of the commission about the terms of reference in the order in council. I was appalled by their reply. I noted that in paragraph 7 it states that the commission shall advise the minister on the need for legislation or any other action that may be required to facilitate conversion to the metric system. I asked whether they intended to advise the minister that legislation is necessary, and how they intended to proceed. The reply was that they intended to follow the wording which says "or any other action". In other words, they do not want a bill or guidelines; they want to be a law unto themselves so they make their own rules and proceed as they see fit. I have the feeling that we should have the Auditor General review their spending and have them appear before the public accounts committee to justify their spending.
fMr. Kempling.]
Numerous groups have registered their dissatisfaction with the progress of the commission. The proposition of "let the costs fall where they may" is surely the height of folly. As things stand at the moment, lack of leadership at the federal level has led to confusion on the part of the public. Industry is waiting and watching for someone else to make the move.
In respect of what the minister said about the provinces having programs, I checked with every province and find that none has a cabinet policy or a stable program concerning metric conversion. They are all waiting for direction from the minister. It may seem to many that the idea of letting the costs fall where they may is the cheapest way to do it, but the sector committees have no authority; they are neither paid nor reimbursed for their expenses. As a consequence, there is a high turnover. If this matter were not so vital to industry perhaps it would be all right to let the costs fall where they may.
I have the impression that the Metric Commission believes that by a snap of the finger we will be metric by 1980. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is good and bad news in these remarks, so having said what I have, may I say that I welcome the minister's statement to the effect that he will introduce a program under the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce to assist small business. I commend him for that. I think assistance in metric conversion will be well received by small business. I think the offer of assistance by the federal Business Development Bank to help them in their financing is fine, but we want the minister to go a little further.
If we can finance export development trade at 7 per cent interest and give loans to Cuba at 3 per cent, why can we not have a special rate, say a prime rate, that would be used specifically in respect of metric conversion? As the minister has said, this is a far reaching program which will affect every industry in the country. If we can finance programs outside the country at rates of 3 per cent and 7 per cent, surely to goodness we can do something inside the country at a special rate. I hope the minister will take a serious look at this matter.
The beverage industry in Canada has a particular problem. From my discussions with that industry it would seem that it is making pretty good progress in its conversion, although there is a particular problem. The industry has $40 million worth of re-usable bottles which have an average life of ten years. The industry is awaiting clearance of double labelling by volume so it can use the $40 million worth of bottles. I am told that it would take six to seven years to carry out the complete conversion. We are five years down the road now, so there is no way this conversion will be completed by 1978 or 1980.
Automobile mechanics have a problem in securing new tools. Some modification must be made concerning the tool allowance under the Income Tax Act. I hope the minister will speak to his colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), and suggest that in the next budget provision be made to increase the $150 tool allowance for automobile mechanics. The industry which stands to make the greatest gain from metric conversion is the construction industry. It stands to gain by way of cost reduction under metric conversion. Standardization of building components should be encouraged, yet the Minister of Public

Works (Mr. Drury) has taken no initiative in respect of metric conversion with respect to public buildings. Nothing has been said in any of his speeches about metric conversion. The same thing applies to the remainder of the cabinet; they have all been quiet on the subject.


George Harris Hees: How about dredging?


William James Kempling: I do not know whether dredging will be done under the metric system, but this is an area which might be worth looking into. The provinces and the municipalities are waiting for initiative on the part of the Minister of Public Works. When will we see it? If you look at the total of the buildings which the Department of Public Works erects in the course of a year, and add to it provincial and municipal undertakings, you will find that it represents a large portion of the construction in this country. Surely the department should show some initiative and give some leadership to the provinces and municipalities which await government action in this area because they are aware of the advantages of metric conversion.
I should like to sum up what I have said. We support the Metric Commission. We want to see it act in co-operation with our neighbour to the south. However, we are very concerned about the operation of the Metric Commission. We believe that it needs a good shake-up, that it needs firm direction and that it needs support from the minister and from other members of the cabinet. We believe that the structure of the sector committees must be given careful consideration. If they are not functioning properly, they should be reconstituted. The committee must have some authority; and we are not sure that the use of volunteer help is the best way to proceed. As I understand it, sector committees sit about four times a year. Committee members come to Ottawa at their own expense. I think some provision is made to cover travel costs if they travel beyond Winnipeg, in which case I believe they get 25 per cent of the fare but no per diem. While this may be economical, I do not think the best results can be obtained from employing volunteer help, because they have no authority.
Metric conversion in Canada will put us in step with the rest of the world. As I read recently in a magazine, the People's Republic of Yemen, Burma, Canada and the United States are the only countries in the world not on the metric system. Metric conversion must go forward and for this we must have leadership and direction, both of which we lack at present. We look to the minister to give the commission a good swift boot to get them in line and get this program under way.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to participate in the debate this afternoon but I am sorry to hear that we are not more advanced in converting to the metric system, as is apparent from the timetable outlined by the minister. In looking in my file I find that in 1968 I introduced a bill regarding metric conversion. The bill is designed to provide a technique of study for the applicability to Canada of the metric system. The appointment of a commission of senior public servants is intended, first to avoid the costs and delays inherent in the
Metric Conversion
appointment of a royal commission, and second to ensure the completion of studies and reports within a reasonable period of time. I have been wondering, since I looked this up, why I have become so interested in the whole matter of metric conversion since I do not know very much about the subject. However, I am very interested in the history of the metric system as it was outlined by the previous speaker.
I understand that the Conservative government under the leadership of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) had undertaken a study within the government. Since nothing resulted from that study, it might seem that I should be given credit for what the government did, because on reading the bill one finds that the government followed my recommendations; so it seems as if I had written the program. This does not always happen. It is interesting to look back to the correspondence and see what one of the groups which wrote to me said at that time. I am referring to a letter which I received from the Canadian Teachers' Federation in which they said the federation had taken note of the bill respecting conversion to the metric system, and they put forward the following resolution:
The Canadian Teachers' Federation has taken note of Bill C-85 (an act respecting the metric system) which you had originally introduced in the House. We thought you might be interested in knowing that the Canadian Teachers' Federation has passed the following resolution:
"That the CTF encourage conversion to the metric system".
In 1970 I received a letter from the Canadian Institute of Quantity Surveyors after I introduced another bill in 1969. They wrote:
This letter is prompted by Bill C-42, designed to provide a technique of study for the applicability to Canada of the metric system, which you introduced to the House of Commons on October 30th last.
They went on to say they were of the following opinion:
(a)	Canadian conversion to the metric system must arise from economic necessity.
(b)	The desire to convert must be voluntarily generated by industry, and not by government.
(c)	Most importantly, to be effective the conversion must have the support of all levels of government, federal, provincial and municipal, and must permeate the entire national economy.
I also received a letter at that time from a gentleman who was very interested in the subject. He wrote:
If your bill is adopted, it could reasonably be expected that the commission would report in favour of the metric system. The presentation of the subject to the House of Commons, following the introduction of the report of the commission, would require a more comprehensive study of the wider implications of the question, nationally and internationally. I hope that a complete acceptance of units of the metric system for all uses in government, industry, commerce and merchandising would be possible, at the one time.
He went on to state some other advantages of the metric system. This was appreciated because, as I said, I am not an expert on the subject. When I introduced that bill I was familiar with a couple of problems that had developed and had been dealt with in parliament shortly before that time. While I certainly do not have the advantage of the knowledge possessed by the minister on this subject, I am particularly interested in an inquiry we undertook on the subject of conversion to the metric system of certain machinery and tools. At that time a great number of systems were being used in Canada for the measurement

Metric Conversion
of simple things like nuts and bolts and machine threads. There were right-hand threads, left-hand threads, and some bastardized sizes that did not fit anywhere.


Mr. Foster:: It is always members of the NDP who make such statements.


William Arnold Peters: If the hon. member is referring to the word I used, there is a type of thread that goes by that name; but a member of parliament from the medical profession would probably not be familiar with that. His relationship with that word would be in another context.
It was obvious at that time that great advantage was to be gained from conversion to the metric system even in such a small area as the manufacture of nuts and bolts, so that a farmer would not have to choose from such a large selection of nuts and bolts for every farm implement. The other advantage would be derived from the fact that since tools for farm machinery come in all sizes, if we could adopt one universal system of measurement many units would become interchangeable and this would prove to be economical.
Whether or not these advantages are sufficiently great to warrant plunging the country into the cost and effort of metric conversion, with all it entails, is not clear. Since that time I have received a letter from the Teachers' Federation which points out that they have reconsidered the problem and are now prepared to act upon it. There again, they are having extreme difficulties because if they are going to act on it they will have to do so in a very heavy-handed way. They are of the opinion that they should go into the metric system fully and be prepared to teach it, not in comparison to the old system but as a new system and teach that and that only.
There are tables and other paraphernalia to allow for conversion factors. It is quite possible that the old system of feet, inches, chains and rods, pounds and all the other things common to the English measuring system should probably be taught in history now, because it is a very interesting subject and it would be interesting f on young people to find out how we, in a very archaic way, have developed our systems of measurement.
I agree that if we are going to convert, it has to be done fairly suddenly. I drove down Highway 11 in Ontario a few months ago and saw a sign which read 350 or 370 kilometres to Toronto. I wondered how far it was from North Bay to Toronto. I went down the road about half a mile and saw a sign which said it was 217 miles to Toronto.
I do not think the 217 miles should be translated into kilometres. The process of translating brings about many difficulties.
I would have liked the minister to explain a number of difficulties, which he did not mention, in the flow of this conversion to what is called the International System of Units. The International System of Units, as I understand it, is really what we call the metric system. It is a subject that was studied very carefully; this may account for the spending of some of the $7 million that we have heard about. I knew one of the senior officials-I met him socially quite regularly-and he was either going to, or coming from, Europe all the time.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: He must have been the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).


William Arnold Peters: I did not discuss it at any great length, but I understand they were discussing in a number of countries how they would make this conversion-even in countries which we thought were on the metric system previously, such as France and Italy. These countries are also having a great deal of difficulty in converting.
We would expect, when we listen to the weather announcements, to hear that it is two degrees centigrade or minus two degrees centigrade, but that is not what we hear: it is referred to as two degrees Celsius. I ask, what the hell is Celsius?
Of course, there are a number of temperature systems. There is a system with the absolute-that is a scientific scale-there is the Fahrenheit scale and there is the centigrade scale. There are at least one or two more temperature scales. I assume that instead of using the centigrade scale we would go to one of these outlandish scales which have been developed. I understand that Celsius was a scientist who played around with units of temperature and was responsible for the development of the centigrade scale. We call the other one Fahrenheit: I do not know whether he was the person who developed it.
Instead of going to centigrade, we went to the Celsius scale. I think the minister should have explained how that fits into the SI units of metric conversion, because I think this causes concern to people thinking in terms of centigrade and we find it is not being called that at all. I wonder if the people who announce the weather are having fun. Sometimes they are; they throw the chalk into the air and quite often they miss and put the highs where the lows should be.
Other countries are having difficulty with the SI system as well. The Metric Monitor contains some very good information. It also contains much propaganda. I do not understand what Premier Robert Bourassa's kilometer zero monument was established for, or why it is on the front page, but it does say that Mr. Boire, the executive director of the commission, when travelling around found that in England they are experiencing slow progress and lack of a positive attitude toward the adoption of the SI metric system. The Metric Monitor also says:
The British Metrication Board feels that the delay in carrying through the program was piling up unnecessary costs in industry due to the continuing requirements for production and inventory maintenance in both systems.
This was pointed out by the previous speaker, and it reflects surveys by independent businessmen in the small business community. They are very concerned at having to carry double inventories in many of their commodities. The Metric Monitor goes on to say:
The failure to communicate with the consumer and the extension of the changeover period has increased confusion and consumer reaction against the change.
France: Metric units and SI symbols are generally being properly applied to signs and packages. In industry, there is general reluctance to give up old metric pressure units such as the kilogram per square centimetre and the bar, plus considerable opposition to using the newton rather than the kilogram force. Temperature is generally referred to as degree centigrade rather than degree Celsius. SI is exlcusively taught at all educational levels, but new metric units are generally frowned upon at the industrial operating level.


It goes on to talk about Italy and other countries and what they have done. I think it is to Canada's credit that this has been done. The government cannot take much credit for it, because credit must go to the civil servants who have become very involved with a number of private businessmen who have co-operated with the advisory commission to develop a scheme across the world that will upgrade the metric system in countries which have been on the system for a long time.
When this conversion takes places, it should be truly representative of weights and measures. I do not know how to translate volume and other measurements, but the whole system must progress so that we do not find ourselves using a metric system in this country which is not in use in other countries. If they continue to use centigrade degrees and we use degrees Celsius, and if they use kilograms and we use something else, we will be no better off than we were in the first place. Other countries have spent on metric conversion the sums of money which our commission has spent on it. The idea of converting is to use a standard of measurement which will be universally accepted and adopted.
Some funny things can happen when you convert. Let me tell the House a little story. A man went to a lumber dealer and asked to purchase six feet of two by four pine, dressed four sides. "I'm sorry," said the salesman, "but we no longer sell lumber by the foot-pound system; everything is sold by metric measurement." "Very well", said the customer, "give me two metres of two by four pine, dressed four sides." The salesman said, "I must disappoint you again, sir; our two by four pine is available only in lengths of 1.83 and 2.44 metres." The customer was a bit confused at these odd sizes and asked; "Why do you stock only odd-numbered lengths?" The salesman replied, "It's because it is all rounded off to the nearest foot."
That story shows what could happen and how hard it may be for some people to figure out measurements under the metric system. The mathematical calculations are beyond the ability of many Canadians and, frankly, I do not want to learn how to operate a small computer when doing my conversions. Let me refer hon. members to an article in the Toronto Star, by Ellen Roseman, entitled "Consumers must switch-and maybe fight." It reads:
A woman went to her florist recently to buy a dozen roses. The florist charged her for a dozen roses but only gave her ten.
"We're using the metric system now and this is a metric dozen," he explained.
Stories like this make government officials livid with rage. There's no such thing as a metric dozen, they say, but try telling that to an unscrupulous merchant who sees metric conversion as a profit-making bonanza.
As overseer of the switch, the Metric Commission in Ottawa is urging producers not to smuggle in price changes along with metric size changes.
It is also asking producers to make the new metric sizes larger, rather than holding the price steady and shrinking the package.
There are no penalties in law for merchants who make extra profit out of conversion. The Metric Commission is relying on moral suasion to keep them in line. It's using the 110,000 members of the Consumers Asssociation of Canada as watchdogs.
Metric Conversion
Still, "there are some consumers who feel that merchants are salivating for the time when Canada goes metric and they can gouge away," says George Mailhot, a sector manager with the Metric Commission.
"This hasn't been the experience of Australia and Great Britain when they converted. Sure there were isolated cases, but no excess rip-off."
As I suggested in 1968 converting to the metric system, I am happy to note that the government did not delay too long in following my advice. I must sound a warning which the government would do well to heed. If the conversion is to be successful, the government must introduce a bill which will stipulate standards of measurement. We all know that present measurements of length and volume must meet certain federal standards. Penalties are provided in cases where standards are not met. The government should stipulate standard metric measurements which people in business in this country and in other occupations must meet. As well, the suggested date, 1980, for the implementation of metric measurement is unrealistic. I do not think it can be done much before 1985, and I suspect the minister will be satisfied if the new standards are wholly adopted by the year 2000.
We must guard against abuse and provide penalties for gouging which may result directly from conversion. Without safeguards, Canadians will not know if they are being cheated. I have often seen women in grocery stores trying to figure out whether a can or package labelled in metric units is smaller or larger than an apparently similar sized can or package labelled in today's standard units of measurement. The new units of measurement may puzzle consumers and we must provide safeguards against abuse. The old slogan in the marketplace, "Let the buyer beware," still holds good. We have all heard of the butcher who puts his thumb on the scales to make the package seem heavier. We must make sure that rip-off artists do not keep their thumbs on the scale. To prevent abuse, legislation will be necessary.
Small businesses may need help with conversion, help which could be provided under a bill. If the conversion is to be completed in the stipulated period, help will be necessary. I suggest that the small entrepreneur, the small, independent businessman who can only convert at considerable cost in terms of increased overhead will need help. Assistance will have to be provided. Against that, however, there is considerable advantage which will accrue to the larger companies: they will receive greater benefit from the conversion. It will be an opportunity for them to upgrade their operations. If they are given some assistance, they will be able to upgrade and modernize their facilities. This will obviously result in the production of a larger number of goods. Where we are now limited to countries which have the same measuring system as ours, with the metric system we will be able to compete in world markets.
I would like to know how the minister intends to assist the communities of this nation. Somebody mentioned fire hydrants. How will a small community change over its fire hydrants?


Alastair William Gillespie: Why would they?


Metric Conversion


William Arnold Peters: That is a very bright question for the minister to ask. Obviously, the hoses wear out. The replacement couplings will not fit the hydrants. If by law the manufacturing facilities must be converted by 1980, the replacement hoses will not fit the present hydrants.


Alastair William Gillespie: They can adapt the couplings.


William Arnold Peters: I know something about firefighting equipment, including couplings. Anyone who has served with a volunteer fire department knows something about this. Couplings are a very special commodity. Adjustments will likely have to be made to the hydrants, not to the hoses. However, both the hydrants and the hoses may have to be converted-an expensive proposition. This will also apply to such things as automobile tires. It will be an added cost to municipalities. I agree that you can use adapters, but they are very expensive. An hon. member is smiling. As he comes from the Ottawa region, he should be familiar with the fact that the Ontario government set up a regional government for the Ottawa area. Without knowing the facts, I can safely say-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Arnold Peters: -that there is the law of averages and there are about 15 or 18 different sizes. It is quite safe to say that four or five municipalities within greater Ottawa have systems that are not interchangeable. I would be surprised if even their radio equipment were interchangeable, and it is a very small matter when it comes to changing crystals. However, someone has to buy and change them.
Conversion to the metric system will cost money. Changes will have to be made in the whole social field. The minister knows very well the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce will gain by this conversion. His department could make the transition a lot easier by providing grants in order to make the conversion. I would like to suggest that his department provide a factory to manufacture some of this equipment, but that might not be acceptable to this government.
Another weakness in the conversion is the lack of response we have had from many of the provincial governments. I have always been interested in the province of Quebec in terms of international measurements, signs, and so on. In Ontario, there are huge, bilingual signs to show there is a bump in the road. Quebec has always followed the international system of just having a picture. In that province it is not a matter of the language you speak; their signs can be understood by all. I am quite sure there will be much greater acceptance of the metric system in the province of Quebec than in many other provinces. Some provinces will have difficulty meeting the responsibility which will fall on their shoulders. If there has been a weakness in the committees established to study metric conversion, it has been the provincial governments. If the minister is at all serious about his deadlines, he will have to get the co-operation of the provinces. This will involve a lot more discussion with the provinces.
I have often said the federal government has a responsibility toward education. I sincerely believe it has a very large responsibility at the junior levels of education with regard to conversational French. If it has that responsibility, it should pay for it. This government has been extreme-
ly lax in providing equality of opportunity to learn a second language. If that is true, it is equally true with regard to providing educational facilities for training young people in the metric system. It will be necessary for our educational institutions to have some assistance in replacing their equipment at as early a date as possible if our young people are to learn the metric system. Added to the other expenses the school boards and educational facilities have to meet this year, it will not be possible to meet this commitment without help from this government. The Canadian Teachers' Federation are anxious to meet this commitment.
The minister introduced this motion in a lackadaisical manner. He referred to it as a joint Senate and House of Commons motion to do something that has not been spelled out. He did not even attach to the motion the timetable which he later tabled. If we do not meet some of the problems I have referred to, it will not be possible for Canada to be on the metric system by 1980. In five years we have developed a lot of fancy documents. This booklet is a good example, and it has been duplicated by the dozen. More material is being turned out than one can imagine. On every page there is listed a different date by which the government expects conversion to take place. For example, it states:
Most provinces in Canada will be teaching metric as of September, 1974. Many provinces have run metric workshops for their teachers.
If they have not done so by now, they are not going to do it. It is now 1975 and we should know whether all schools are now teaching this system. As I stated, on each page of this booklet there is a different date for conversion. Under the heading "Shopping" it is said the conversion with regard to toothpaste would take place in 1973. Each page covers a different item and has a different date. For instance, talking about textiles they say:
Textiles will be dual-labelled for a time and then labelled in widths measured in centimetres and sold by the metre, probably by March,
1977.
Each page gives a different date by which these things are expected to take effect. Mr. Speaker, we cannot hope for much from a Liberal government. They never move very fast or very firmly. I give them full credit for having got this far. It surprises the hell out of me to find them accepting an idea which I thought was a very progressive one. They accepted it at least in the form of a white paper in less than 2 Vt years. They have studied the matter, and the study is now complete. I wonder whether it has proved possible to get the other nations of the world to accept the SI units of measurement of which the minister spoke and whether acceptance of this international unit will have the force of a convention binding on all countries.
I do not begrudge the $7 million which has been spent on this concept, because I believe it is a system which should last for a long time. Children will be able to add in tens-about the only accomplishment I was able to master in the course of my own career in mathematics; you can ask my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, and they will tell you my arithmetic is very bad beyond that point. The metric system does permit a degree of exactness which nothing else will allow.


It is important that the public accept the timetable which the minister has put forward. It is also important that use is not made of devices which the public will not accept or which the public will accept only with reluctance. Unless care is taken, a backlash of resentment will develop against the use of the metric system, especially if the two systems are allowed to be used side by side for a lengthy period of time. I hope a bill will be introduced shortly, expressed in firm language and providing penalties for failure to use the official measurements where established, so that these arrangements will be binding on all Canadians.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to speak about the motion of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie), which reads as follows:
That the ... House of Commons approve the government's program of guideline dates for metric conversion;
And that a message be sent to the Senate informing their honours that this House has adopted a resolution approving a program of guideline dates ...
Mr. Speaker, since the tabling in the House of the green paper in 1970, I sincerely believe that this question has progressed very slowly. I still recall the statements of the minister of that time who, when tabling the green paper, stated why the government wanted to introduce the metric system. At that time, he said that it was the British who had maintained for so long the impossible imperial system. They were helped by the United States, a country that used to belong to the British empire and which kept not only the language, but also the archaic measurements of the British government.
Today, Mr. Speaker, more than 110 countries use the system, but I think that the Canadian people might not be ready to accept it. In my opinion, we should urgently prepare Canadians for the introduction of the metric system.
In the United States, the people are doing more or less what we are doing; they are studying and they are wondering how much it will cost. In reading the statements of the minister, I was surprised to learn a few things. He said and I quote:
Let us note that the use of the metric system is legal in Canada since 1873 but that our legislators at that time made the mistake, as their colleagues in the United States ...
. .. and all governments since ...
... not to declare imperial units illegal. Their lack of foresight is now costing us much hardship and money.
At that time, the Metric Commission was created. When he tabled his green paper, the same minister described as follows the advantages of the metric system:
The basic unit of the metric system is the meter which was created in France in 1793 and based on one ten-millionth part (lO7) of a quarter of the earth meridian.
With as well defined a unit which is divided by tens instead of inches, lines and half-lines I feel the metric system is excellent. I see that in the House 90 per cent of all hon. members recognize today the necessity of the metric system. There will always be a small percentage of them, 10 to 15 per cent, who will not want it. Even last
Metric Conversion
week I heard someone say the metric system was impossible. Many things were said to be impossible 20, 30 or 40 years ago which have become possible today. To my mind, there is nothing impossible about adopting the metric system. When 90 per cent of the world population have adopted it, it is high time for the other 10 per cent to follow suit. The minister also indicated there would be difficulties, that some already existed. And he said:
It is often impossible to express precise measures in British units and that is why we often use ordinary fractions.
In the metric system, the smallest unit visible to the naked eye is the millimeter, while in the British system, it is the inch which is twenty-five times greater than the millimeter. The ounce is twenty-eight times greater that the gram.
Minute dimensions in which modern science now deals are impossible to express in our traditional system, but are rather simple in the metric system.
I shall not repeat all those information. They aimed first of all at reassuring the people that the federal Parliament was not embarking on an adventure, but was fulfilling an obligation. The minister said the process was rational and that the population had to go along with it.
Parliament established a commission for metrication. I feel that commission did not put enough emphasis on education. In my view, the commission stressed one main point, judging from what we received from it. I do not know if other members received other reports. I have in hand one six-page report. Considering it cost us $7 million, I feel this is somewhat expensive per page. We should have obtained more information on that commission's work. We read in the report that the commission's main effort was to contact industries. But at the consumer level, it apparently did not make any real effort. I think the first priority should have been consumer education, especially in the school system.
I wonder now how much the commission invested in our schools to help teach the metric system across the country. I am convinced 75 per cent of older people, and by that I do not mean 90- or 95-year olds, but middle-aged people who were educated in the foot-pound system, will be trained by their children. They will teach them how to think in terms of metres. Those who never heard of it will tend, when they try to understand the system, to make comparisons. It takes time, as every French Canadian trying to learn English did experience; at first, he tries to translate the words before speaking. Pretty soon, we will have to think in terms of something else, this time in terms of metres. That will be difficult for those who were trained otherwise. I believe the commission should have emphasized the work to be done in schools. If children are taught to think metric, it will be much easier for industries and even governments to implement that system someday.
The minister was saying this afternoon that he was organizing three pilot projects. Fine! A pilot project is all fine, but it should not last for two or three years, until 1978. While those pilot projects will be carried out in three areas, all the rest of Canada will be waiting. I think that experiment should be carried out throughout Canada, and to begin with children should be taught that system. They would thus be ready for the metric system, and all the rest

Metric Conversion
would follow naturally. That would mean lesser expenses for the government.
The first three pages of the report deal with an academic course to define the metric system. Page four briefly describes the activities of the commission and deals with the approximate cost-
The cost of that broad and ambitious conversion program cannot be estimated with any degree of precision.
I agree with them, for if their progress is going to be so slow, it's also going to be very expensive.
Relationships with the United States are mentioned at the end of the report, which says that metrication is a must for North America. I think that system will be implemented throughout Canada by 1980, and the United States will have to follow suit. However, we should not force that system upon the United States, since Canada always abides by what the United States decide. I am not saying that we should copy from anyone, to see if they will go metric if we don't. Let us get in step with the world because in a couple of years the metric system will be a worldwide phenomenon. We will then have made the step toward progress.
Earlier I heard a representative of the Progressive Conservative Party say, "We will certainly have suggestions to make, we will be inclined to accept the government proposals." Of course I recognize those fears, and Progressive Conservatives are a bit like us when they ask what has the commission done in the past four years. Its work will have to be examined to see if it is serious, if the money was well managed. In those discussions the commission will certainly have to provide more explanations so we can know where we are going. It is all fine to set up guidelines, but we must know in every detail what they can produce.
So we are waiting for all those details so we can know in the next two years what all that might cost at the federal, provincial, municipal, school, industrial, private, public, and parapublic levels. People must know what metric conversion will cost them.
Pilot projects were mentioned. I was somewhat surprised to learn that the minister did not make any federal proposal. It would have been interesting to know his views, and that would have set an example for provincial governments to follow. Unless a few imaginative projects are initiated with respect to the metric system, industries will be increasingly inclined to drag on, and provincial governments will wonder what Ottawa is doing in all that.
I do not know what the views of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce are, but at least today a step was made. We expected something with a little more detail because a lot was expected from that commission. When that commission was set up I thought every year we would be informed, step by step, about what was being done toward metric conversion.
Mr. Speaker, there will be more discussions in committee or in the House. For our part, we are interested in the matter. I heard a while ago the spokesman for the New Democratic Party say that it will be easy in Quebec where there will be much more progess. I admit that it will be probably so. Quebec will go faster in its conversion to the metric system, because in the first place, I think that it

heard about it sooner than other provinces, except perhaps Ontario. It is not surprising. Quebec reacts faster when there is a new development in any field whatever. As for contraception, Quebec has beaten all records. We rank first among provinces for our low birth rate. For high birth rate, we have again beaten the record. We can beat all the records, outmatch all the others and establish the metric system much faster than elsewhere.
I hope that Quebec will show its leadership, since it is now an urgent matter, and establish the metric system to be in harmony with people throughout the world.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on this very important subject I cannot help but echo the words of the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth (Mr. Kempling) and others who have stated we need a proper bill in respect of metric conversion. This is a very important and costly subject in Canada, but to date there has been very little public acceptance. The business community is certainly concerned about metric conversion and to date the glossy brochures full of cartoons are not allaying the fears of businessmen or consumers in this country. It would appear that the $7 million which will be spent by the end of 1975 has not done the selling job for the government and that is why it is important that a proper bill be brought in.
I should like to make some comments in respect of how the metric system is advancing in the United States. They are making some headway, but they are also bringing in some subsidies to help small businesses. I will comment on that in a few minutes. Leading the shift in the United States are large businesses such as General Motors, the nation's largest manufacturer. GM is swinging to a policy of designing all new parts in metrics. This giant firm wants to harmonize production in all GM plants throughout the world. In the U.S. this will affect about 40,000 of GM's suppliers. In addition, Pintos and Mustangs are being equipped with 2.3 litre engines and powered by motors designed entirely in metrics. An estimated 30 per cent to 40 per cent of Ford's production is in foreign markets where metrics are the standard, and a shift in the United States will make parts interchangeable.
In addition, an international panel has agreed on a new standard size for widely used office paper, being 210 by 280 millimetres, which may eventually replace the 8 Vi by 11 inch paper found in most U.S. offices. Many adults will be in for some trying times in computing the new figures but youngsters in many parts of the country are already getting their first taste of the new standards in school. At least 14 states of the United States are in the early stages of preparing class work in metrics and six have enacted laws calling for the metric system to be taught.
In California all elementary school texts must include metrics by 1976, and Maryland has a six-year program of instruction to shift to the new system. Many federal agencies are getting on the metric bandwagon as well, and the U.S. Patent Office is encouraging inventors to include both types of measurements in their patent applications. It would appear that the United States is doing a better


selling job and making better preparations, especially in the educational system, in their country than we are. I will be going into more detail as to the fears in respect of costs of metric conversion on the part of Canadian school boards.
In the United States, however, most experts agree that if the entire nation is to go metric, it must have full federal backing, an idea that has been kicking around since Thomas Jefferson urged the adoption of a decimal system some 150 years ago. I referred to subsidies earlier and I should point out that in the United States they intend to sponsor a bill that would help mechanics pay for the cost of new tools. As an example, an official there argued that a typical machinist who buys his own tools might spend as much as $4,000 for a new set of metric-measured tools. Many small businesses say much the same, that replacing expensive equipment could prove prohibitive. One industrial official in the United States has stated:
There's bound to be a lot of hauling and tugging over the final version of the bill, but if everybody gives a little I think we can finally get the switch to metrication under way.
Some who are in support of the legislation in the United States estimate that the switch could add from $500 million to $700 million in exports per year, and foreign firms could increase their sales to the extent of $300 million to $500 million in the United States.
There have been many meetings across the country, including full-day seminars, to discuss the metric system. I should like to put some of their comments on the record. Mr. J. Kenneth Clark, assistant vice-president of Simp-sons-Sears Limited in Toronto, when speaking to a one-day metric seminar in Toronto sponsored by the Conference Board of Canada stated that no matter to what extent government sponsored commissions, committees and subcommittees indulge in sharing education, in the final analysis it will be the retailer who will bear the burden of educating the reluctant consumer and be the recipient of consumer reaction.
May I call it five o'clock?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of the adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche)-External Affairs-Niger-Allegation people starving in spite of availability of Canadian grain-Measures to control aid program; the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie)-Consumer Affairs-Bilingual labelling-Request for consultation with businessmen-Government action.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on
Western Newfoundland Economic Development today's order paper, namely, notices of motions, public bills.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take immediate steps to consult with the province of Newfoundland with the objective of appointing an advisory and planning board for western Newfoundland; to ensure the steady and orderly progress of existing economic development of that part of Canada and, particularly, to ensure support for infrastructural, economic, industrial and social and environmental needs, and that the Board consist of elements of the Departments of Regional Economic Expansion, Manpower and Immigration, National Health and Welfare, Transport, Public Works, Environment, Energy, Mines and Resources and the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, although my motion may be considered parochial in nature, I feel its contents, the proposal and its objectives can be relevant on a national basis. It simply asks that the government should appoint, in consultation with the province, a planning and advisory board for western Newfoundland to ensure the steady and orderly progress of the present unprecedented economic development taking place in that part of Canada, and particularly to ensure support for infrastructural, economic, industrial and social and environmental needs, with suggestions for representation on that board.
The west coast of Newfoundland stretches along a coastline of some 500 miles from Port aux Basques in the south to the tip of the northwest coast. I do not intend to trespass on that part of the coast which lies within the responsibility of my colleague the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson), and for the purposes of my exercise will refer only to that greater part of the coast which lies within my own district. Neither is it my intention to cross over into the district of my other colleague the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey), who represents very well the land mass of Labrador almost adjoining; but since there is a very close interrelationship, it is necessary to mention Labrador because the development of the vast energy resources in that part of Canada affects and charges us both with certain responsibilities and emphasizes the need for the special attention and planning which I am requesting through my motion.
In this regard I refer to the provincial government's plans to proceed with the development of the hydro potential of the lower Churchill as follows: the development of the full hydroelectric resources of the Gull Island site, together with a transmission facility for delivery of the power to the island of Newfoundland and an inter-tie with

Western Newfoundland Economic Development
power development on the upper Churchill and the additional island facilities which will be necessary to integrate the existing system. The project, when carried out, will deliver 11 billion kilowatt hours of energy to the island and Labrador, which is equivalent to approximately 18 million barrels of fuel oil annually and would evidently make Newfoundland self-sufficient in her energy needs. Conclusions reached by the consultants indicate that if total financing could be realized of the projected amount of $1.6 billion, then the benefits could be achieved and the output could be absorbed by 1985 to 1988. It is not necessary to point out the importance for Newfoundland, too- because of her isolation-to become self-sufficient in her energy needs. Along with the Come-by-Chance oil refinery and the gas finds off Labrador, this could be realized to ensure not only self-sufficiency but indeed to provide surplus energy to other parts of Canada.
Another important factor in the procurement of energy in our province is to induce mineral exploration and the resulting industrial potential. It is worth while mentioning that I commend the federal government's agreeing to lend the province 50 per cent of the cost of transmission facilities up to $343 million and it now appears that financing will be forthcoming. But coincidental with the resource development is the need to transmit the power to the island via the Strait of Belle Isle in my district at the narrowest point between the two land masses by a cable tunnel 60,000 feet long, 14 feet wide and 17 feet high under the strait to a depth of some 700 feet. As an aside, I am proud to say to the doubters of my private member's bill for the creation of a tunnel to connect the two land masses, which I first introduced in 1968, that the idea was not too far-fetched after all.
I can only hope when the government accepts my motion at the end of this debate that the planning and advisory board which will be created will take as one of its first tasks the ongoing study required to expand the crossing to include the provision of vehicular access, or at least preparation of the design for future additions. But to indicate the magnitude of the project, Mr. Speaker, it is estimated that a labour force of some 600 men would be required in the initial stages, reaching 2,600 men at the peak period.
The figures I mention came out of a study made by consultants which gives in pretty elaborate detail the requirements for the construction of the sophisticated facilities and engineering, but brushes over very lightly the infrastructural support required, such as the need for roads, harbour facilities, third level air service, housing developments, townsites, construction camps and other basic services. This supports my motion in one respect for proper planning to ensure orderly development.
Vast amounts of equipment will have to be transported to the presently isolated location, emphasizing the need for road building, the provision of harbour facilities and the creation of third level airports. It is obvious that there is a need at this very moment to plan that these facilities are provided coincidental with the development of the site. The present road system along the great northern peninsula is entirely inadequate, and while I must give credit again to the minister for his co-operation with the province of Newfoundland in the roads programs which

started last year to support the establishment of the zinc mine in central Newfoundland and the Gros Morne national park, much more needs to be done on an emergency
basis.
Further, shipments of goods and services will have to be made from the ports of Port aux Basques and Corner Brook. As well, lines of transport communications will be required to support the Labrador linerboard mill in Ste-phenville for the movement of the raw resources required between Labrador and the island. Again, Mr. Speaker, even with the financial support over the years to these ports by the federal government, they are congested to the point where expansion is vitally necessary.
So does this, then, not indicate the need for a planning group with elements of MOT and Public Works to become involved right now to ensure orderly progress? And if, as is projected, some 2,600 men will be required, does not this point out the need right now for the Department of Manpower and Immigration to become involved to provide training programs for the jobs required; and since, certainly, there will be a need to bring people in with families from other parts of the province and area and, indeed, the technical skills required from other parts of Canada, is not there a need for orderly housing development for the construction of townsites, to provide water and sewer facilities and to help local school boards to project the needs for expansion of educational facilities?
I ask all members who may participate in this debate, are those people with these specialized skills to move to isolated areas without proper telephone service, without adequate television service and without adequate medical services, which are certainly not adequate in northern Newfoundland? Does this, then, not point out the need for involvement of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) and the Minister of Communications (Mr. Pelletier) with their provincial counterparts to ensure representation and achieving orderly planning?
What about the effects on the environment and on the quality of life of the proud citizens of those isolated areas who have been oriented primarily to the fast depleting fishing industry? Mr. Speaker, does this not point out the need for involvement by the minister of the environment and fisheries (Mrs. Sauve) with her provincial counterpart? Even in this area of concern I realize that there has just been completed an environmental overview of the lower Churchill power development under the auspices of the provincial government, suggesting measures to minimize principal environmental effects. But these studies tend to get cast aside and it is therefore important that a responsible group be charged with the responsibility to ensure that the recommendations are carried out to the benefit of those Canadians affected.
I might mention, too, the many volumes that make up the trans-Newfoundland corridor transportation study, which does not refer to any inter-tie that is now vitally required in all forms of transportation to the north and again projects the immediate need for further studies to collaborate with the corridor. At this very moment the TransCanada Highway has deteriorated to the point where in order to support this mode of transportation there is the requirement for a strengthening program and expansion of the TransCanada Highway in Newfoundland
March 17, 1975	_____________COMMONS DEBATES________________________4171
to bring it up to a reasonable standard. It is my contention that the TransCanada Highway never, ever, met acceptable standards and if one wanted to look at that highway, or that portion which exists in my district, it would be embarrassing.
But even the industrial progress which can accrue as a result of the energy development cannot be taken in isolation, because along with this development in northern Newfoundland there is ongoing industrial expansion southward along the coastline that I mentioned. I refer to two worth-while projects in the central and southern parts of the Great Northern Peninsula, the establishment of a zinc mine in Daniel's Harbour and the ongoing development of the Gros Morne national park. Already the developers are faced with housing problems, the need for expanded harbour facilities, new road extensions, public services and other needs required to support the movement of people from other adjacent areas to take advantage of the employment offered.
Moving southward again, mention should be made of the ongoing development of the 750 square miles of Gros Morne national park. Under the general development agreement, the federal government is providing 90 per cent of some $15 million for development programs, for community infrastructure and for road construction not only for communities within the park but also for those that are in close proximity and which can benefit economically and socially. This is in addition to some $20 million provided in the current estimates of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, as well as the many millions of dollars that have already been spent in past years. The total sum amounts to $35 million to $40 million. I mention this to reaffirm the need for ongoing planning and orderly progress which would tie in with the development of the northern part of the province.
I am very excited about the industrial progress that is taking place and will continue to take place in the next few years in the most isolated and remote areas of my province. I am optimistic that not only will the benefits accrue to the citizens in that part of Canada but, more important, it will finally allow Newfoundland to compete with other resource-rich provinces and thus enable us to contribute instead of drawing from the wealth of our nation.
However, the development of this vast area of Canada to which I referred cannot be treated in isolation, without consideration being given to the need to solidify the transport base in the southwestern and southern part of our province. I refer to a rectangle formed by the areas of Port aux Basques, Corner Brook, Stephenville and Deer Lake, the more urban areas in western Newfoundland. These areas must be assisted particularly because of their importance as an entry point and point of dispersal to the northern and central parts of Newfoundland.
I repeat that my friend the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion is quite capable of looking after the area he represents in Port aux Basques without my help, but I am sure that he will agree with me that that port plays a vital role in the ongoing development of Newfoundland. My main concern is to remind the government that if we
Western Newfoundland Economic Development are to get full value for the dollars allocated for this purpose, then the transportation base to which I referred must be supported not only with dollars but with common sense planning to ensure the development and progress of the western part of the province.
Taking into consideration the main port of Corner Brook and the allocation of funds in the estimates amounting to $3.5 million, the representation made by the interested parties from that area to expand the present facilities in that natural port must be treated with the utmost urgency. I was most pleased to hear the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion say in committee recently that that expansion proposals would be studied by officials in his department in collaboration with officials in the Department of Transport and the provincial and municipal governments involved.
In addition, we must look at the over-all development of the three areas in the rectangular base before considering each corner of the rectangle. I should like to impress upon members of parliament the importance of this urban centre an the activity which is taking place thereby pointing out that at present a $10 million regional college is under construction. It will be an important urban centre which will need infrastructural support because of the fact that some 500 students will converge there as well as 150 teachers. As a result, there will be the need for a housing development in the area as well as other public services. The main requirement is for the development of an extension for what is known as the Corner Brook-Curling waterfront and the development of the vast potential which exists in western Newfoundland.
Before leaving the subject of the port of Corner Brook, let me refer to the economic heart of the region, the main industry of western Newfoundland, namely, the great Bowater pulp and paper mills which, as well as gypsum and cement plants, have been the mainstay of the economy of the western part of our province and the economic support of the forest resource potential in western Newfoundland. This focuses attention on the need to collaborate with the international enterprise in Newfoundland's forestry policy and in transportation.
I should like to move now to another part of the rectangle and mention another urban centre known as Stephenville, an area which became a prominent and important centre of industry in western Newfoundland. I will not take the time of the House to relate the results of the economic development of that area, but let me say only that now it holds a very important place in the future of Newfoundland because a $200 million linerboard mill is located there, a successful industrial complex. It is part of the urban development of western Newfoundland.
To lend importance to its place in the future development of the province, the mill and the industrial park which form the basis of the economy will receive from the province over $24 million to cover general expenses. It will also obtain the benefits of a subsidiary agreement with the Department of Regional Economic Expansion amounting to $20 million over a four-year period to be used for the construction of access roads and to cover the cost of equipment.
The only remaining part of the rectangle is the town of Deer Lake which serves as the jumping-off point to the


Western Newfoundland Economic Development
Great Northern Peninsula which must also be taken into consideration in the over-all planning of western Newfoundland because of its strategic location as the hub of the north. It must be obvious by now that as a result of the over-all development we must co-ordinate planning, which is the basis of my motion.
I should like to comment on one vital point, namely, the importance of our agricultural potential. I hope that the minister will realize that many parts of western Newfoundland can produce in sufficient quantities to satisfy the agricultural requirements of most of the province. Notwithstanding our mixed industrial potential in the province, any planning that takes place must take fisheries into account. I am sure that members from Newfoundland will agree that any industrial development that exists must take into account the protection of our fishing industry, and I am sure that those who will take part in this debate will support this principle.
Finally, I should like to say that my motion is presented not to criticize but to help. I have described a mixture of almost every type of development in one region of Canada. Newfoundland is as yet comparatively pollution-free, and I feel very strongly that if the government wished to create a model for future planning in Canada, then here is an opportunity which they will never have again. It is in this context that I propose the establishment of a planning and advisory board with representation from departments and agencies at both levels of government to plan and advise for the orderly progress in western Newfoundland which could be used as an example in the future development of our nation. I hope that my motion will be accepted.


Mr. William Rompkey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to take part in the debate on the motion of my colleague, the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall). Our areas are contiguous and we have problems in common.
I agree with the essential principle of the motion but I do have some concerns which were reflected in the statement made by the hon. member, and that is that the motion is parochial. That is my only concern and I will comment on it more fully. I have no complaint against the general principle of the motion and I support it. I would not like the motion to be limited to the west coast of the province because that would mean that planning would proceed in that area and might not apply to other parts of the province.
The precedent has been set, I might say, in Goose Bay where the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) over two years ago set up the Goose Bay project group. This project group consists of provincial and federal civil servants, and it was set up to do comprehensive, short-term and long-term planning and implementation of a variety of federal and provincial programs. It is possible that this precedent has been applied elsewhere as well.
It is essential that in the administration of programs in particular areas, people, not only politicians but at the civil service level, get together. As a result of the establishment of the project group, a number of developments

are taking place in the Goose Bay area, an area which at present is very vulnerable economically, but I hope solutions can be found to those problems. There has been co-operative planning between the federal and provincial governments in the whole DREE program in the province. So up to this point the principle has been established.
The hon. member referred to the northern peninsula highway. I was glad to see that last year work started from both ends toward the middle of the highway, which has been in terrible condition until now. The highway is vital for the economic development of the north as well as for the development of the quality of life on the northern peninsula of Newfoundland.
Both of our ridings and the whole province will benefit as a result of the forestry agreement which has been signed with the province. As a result of this, access roads and various other facilities for the lumbering industry and the forest industry in general will be built. I would refer also to the great projects in the field of fisheries: for example, the barge on the Labrador coast last year was largely financed out of federal funds. There will be various marine service centres going in this year, not only in my riding but in that of the hon. member, and I am sure he will agree with me when I say that the program of the federal government for small craft harbours has been of great benefit both for my riding and his. We were able to increase the expenditure to something like $30 million last year in small craft harbours and that program has been of great benefit to many small fishing communities in Newfoundland and in all the Atlantic provinces.
The hon. member referred to the Gros Morne national park, and I congratulate him on having in his area one of the beauty spots of the province. I was glad to hear him give due credit to the federal government for its efforts to improve and to beautify that particular area. There is a smaller version in my riding, Lance aux Meadows, where the first Canadians lived in the year 1000-the Viking site in North America. In the next three years we will be spending a total of $9,000,000 on improvement of that national historic park.
If we are to have co-operation, it must be a two-way street: it must not only be federal, but provincial. I have felt-I do not know how the hon. member feels about this-up until now that we might have had a little more emphasis from the provincial government with regard to the development of northern Newfoundland and Labrador. As far as I can see, most of the funds which have been spent on many of these projects and in many of these areas have been federal funds. I hope we will see a firm commitment in the future on the part of the provincial government to the development of that area of the province.
Co-operation is a two-way street, and if there is going to be an advisory board composed of both levels, there must not only be provincial people on the board but it must be the policy of the provincial government to make a contribution to the further development of those areas. I have not been assured to this time that that firm commitment exists. For example, I notice that a great portion of the provincial budget is put aside for roads, and I cannot see


any of that money going into the Labrador area. Roads are essentially a provincial responsibility. We have spent federal money on roads, but surely the provincial government also has a responsibility along those lines.
If the province is to have a massive road building program this summer with provincial funds, I think it is about time it started spending some money in those areas where it has been noticeably lacking until now. I do not think we can be accused of being political in the allocation of our resources, and I think the hon. member in his comments has agreed with me that the spending of our money has been to try to develop the whole province and not just those sections we might serve. Much more needs to be done. The building of the road up the northern peninsula would certainly open up the area for tourism and encourage people to visit places like the park at Lance aux Meadows.
More needs to be done with regard to the fishery. Much more needs to be done with regard to the lumbering industry. There is a great future for those resources on the northern peninsula of Newfoundland. In central Newfoundland there is already a great deal of economic expansion simply as a result of the base which was there in the beginning, but a great deal still needs to be done. I am referring to water and sewer systems and more roads.
My colleague referred to developments of oil and gas off the Labrador coast, some of the greatest finds in the world. We do not know specifically what the potential is- at least, not from the companies. We are able to guess at it; we certainly know there is a large potential there. We have to be careful when the oil, the gas and, indeed, the hydro are being developed that we make sure, first, that we preserve the environment to protect our fishermen and, second, that we preserve the social structure of the communities. I was very glad to know that recently a team from the provincial government had travelled along that coast and talked with people in various Labrador communities about the possible social implications of oil and gas discoveries and oil and gas development off that coast. The same is true of hydro. The federal government has now funded the native people of Newfoundland in carrying out a study as to their rights with regard to this development. The government is very concerned that in all of this development they will not be shunted aside or neglected in so far as their rights are concerned, and I think we should pay attention to that aspect before we go ahead with this development.
My colleague mentioned that we offered to the province of Newfoundland a loan of $343 million at low interest rates for the building of the transmission line. I agree that that should go ahead and that it is essential. I agree that proper planning should be carried out, but I want to be sure that if and when that hydro development goes ahead, the power is brought across Labrador and used for the whole province and not just a particular section of it. Until now I have not received that firm commitment. The people of Labrador are very concerned that this power will be once more exported and not necessarily used for their own development. We must have a commitment from the developers of the power. It is essential to the whole province but it must also be developed for the people in the
Western Newfoundland Economic Development area where the power source is, and we must have that commitment before the development goes ahead.
I agree in principle with this motion. If we are to implement the principle, then let us do it not only for the west coast but also for other areas in the province. Let us have an advisory board not simply for Goose Bay but also for Labrador. Let us have an advisory board for central Newfoundland and southern Newfoundland and other areas. The principle, though, is well taken. In fact, it is essential. In terms of manpower becoming involved, we have already established a precedent with the community employment strategy. A team from Canada Manpower has been working for some months with officials of the department of social services, I believe, of the province of Newfoundland, and possibly other departments, in trying to structure the community employment strategy. Comprehensive, joint planning between federal and provincial civil servants is going on in the province at this point so far as Canada Manpower is concerned.
The principle is a good one. It should be applied to the west coast, certainly. It should be applied to the northern peninsula, to Labrador, throughout the province, and in other provinces as well. I certainly support in principle the feeling which the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe has expressed, and I wish him well in his commendable and successful efforts in the development of his riding.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, the proposal of the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) reminds me, and should remind the House, that he is a Glace Bay boy and a Cape Breton boy and the socialist seems to be coming out in him. He seems to be a socialist in disguise looking for a planning board, so I am happy for him in that regard. I am not sure that the gas finds he and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Rompkey) referred to off Labrador will be as beneficial as he expects for the province, but we can hope, with them, for success in this respect.
I just want to make a few comments about planning, since it is part of the message the hon. member has sought to apply to a particular area of Newfoundland and which his colleague on the other side of the House agreed in principle was needed. When the Atlantic Development Board was set up, it was supposed to come up with a plan for the development of the Atlantic region. This notion seems to have been dropped by the government, for DREE is not really a planning agency, in my opinion, although it should be.
DREE and the Department of Transport are major departments of the federal government which should form the core of a planning board for the Atlantic region. Other federal departments, such as the Department of Public Works and the Department of Fisheries, should attach personnel with at least the status of deputy minister to the proposed planning board. As well, departments of development of all the Atlantic provinces should be included in such a proposed Atlantic regional planning board.


Western Newfoundland Economic Development
Within this planning framework specialized development boards such as the Cape Breton Development Corporation, which is a specialized socio-economic experiment for a depressed area, could serve in Western Newfoundland to fill the role of the sort of planning board proposed by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe.
The proposed Atlantic region planning board would make greater sense if the government gave a commitment to more planning at a national level. Recently Henry Ford III issued a strong warning. North America is undergoing a serious recession and Henry Ford III said that no government today can do without some type of planning mechanism. He was repeating what socialists had long said, that private decision making by corporations often leads to the boom and bust psychology of capitalism, especially corporate capitalism. This leads, on the one hand, to human suffering and severe waste of resources, known as unemployment, and on the other hand, to unstable, inflated prices which are no longer controlled to the same extent as in the past by the private market mechanism. Hence we need to plan how to use our monetary, fiscal and exchange policies to stabilize our economy. There must be planning in some meaningful, national sense.
I believe that economic leadership must be exercised in a new way through a national economic planning board of the sort espoused by the Japanese. This board must be in a position to determine our country's economic and social needs now and for many years to come and provide the public with alternative plans of action. These should not only enable us to avert hardship and disaster, but to guide the economy in a direction consistent with our national values and goals.
I suggest that we are not unfamiliar with the idea of planning. Every individual and business plans for the years ahead. The United States space program is a good example of planning in its most sophisticated and successful form, and illustrates the size of effort which must go into national economic planning. The principles, nevertheless, are simple. First, a set of feasible alternatives was studied, then a realizable goal was set. That goal was the building of a space vehicle to carry a man to the moon and bring him back to earth. To fulfil this mission a long-range program was established. All necessary information had to be gathered in a consistent and useful form; then step by step, the program had to be carried out-


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Make sure you don't send a man to heaven.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It's all right going to heaven. We don't want him going to the other place.


Andrew Hogan: As it is St. Patrick's Day, hon. members' comments may be apt. Allow me to continue. As I said, the space program had to be carried out in the required sequence, the results had to be monitored, and corrections had to be made whenever necessary.
Just as it would have been impossible for a man to go to the moon and back by accident, so it is impossible for us in Canada to achieve our economic objectives by accident. The most striking fact about the way we organize our

economic life is that we leave so much to chance. We give little thought to the direction in which we want to go, and make no consistent effort to balance the needs of different parts of the economy. We do not attempt to ensure that resources are allocated to meet our most urgent national needs. Actually, we know they are not so allocated, as the present state of the economy clearly shows.
We do not try systematically to forecast the needs of the nation in the years ahead. Instead, we use dozens of separate unco-ordinated agencies which make policy in this area and that, without thinking how it all fits together. We have many federal and provincial agencies collecting economic data. In most instances it is insufficiently detailed; frequently, it is obsolete, and often contradictory and incompatible. No single office or agency is responsible for setting appropriate standards and correlating data so that we can pursue coherent national objectives. We make economic policy from quarter to quarter, or year to year, without perspective as to where the economy is going or where we want it to go.
The idea behind planning is simple. On the basis of information, we act. Most of the action in the Canadian economy takes place in the private sector. Democratic planning is not a substitute for a decentralized economy, nor does it replace the millions of private decisions made in the market every day. Instead, democratic planning is needed if we are to reach democratically chosen objectives. It should influence decisions which must be taken in the field of economics. Economic techniques consistent with the attainment of chosen objectives must be used. We already know how these decisions are influenced.
For example, tax incentive or disincentive measures and traditional monetary and fiscal policies directly influence individual actions. Selective credit controls, measures governing basic capital flows, and other measures involving limits to the use of air, water and land, and mandatory resource allocation affect individual actions directly. All such measures have been used at one time or another by the federal government in a haphazard fashion, except in World War II, with no consideration of their over-all effect. The purpose of planning is to take over-all effect into account.
It should be clear that the proposed planning office would not set specific goals for General Motors of Canada, General Electric, or any other individual firm. The office would determine the number of cars, generators, and so on, and the amount of frozen food we might need, say, in five years, and try to induce relevant industries to act accordingly. In such a way the plan would supplement and reinforce the market and have it serve the public interest. This is not happening now.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, let me congratulate the hon. member on his motion. The suggestion for appointing an advisory and planning board is, I believe, a constructive one which the government must consider seriously.


Walter David Baker: Allow the motion to pass, then.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member is another socialist.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Other members will want to speak on this motion because the suggestion contained in it could be applied in many other regions of Canada, especially rural areas. Many small towns and villages simply do not have the resources to establish individually the kind of advisory board I think the hon. member has in mind. So there is no doubt in my mind that the two senior levels of government must be prepared to play a greater and more direct role in ensuring good and orderly development of the more depressed regions of Canada.
I know from researching this proposal that western Newfoundland, containing 18 per cent of the population of the province, faces special circumstances. Some sections of the economic base need considerable improvement. The unemployment levels of the area have been higher than those of the province as a whole, and in the manufacturing sector growth has been only marginal.
Successive federal and provincial governments have attempted in various ways to improve this situation, but not until the Department of Regional Economic Expansion was established in 1969 did the federal government begin a concerted, fully organized effort to attack regional disparity. Since then there has been a proliferation of joint federal provincial undertakings involving not only DREE but other federal authorities such as Manpower, CMHC and Fisheries.
During this period DREE introduced various programs and signed a number of important agreements which have been of economic benefit to western Newfoundland. For the record, I would like to refer to some of them. Under the special areas agreement, as amended, three regions in western Newfoundland were designated: Corner Brook, Hawkes Bay-Port au Choix and Stephenville. The estimated cost of the agreement was $39.9 million. Of this amount DREE will provide $19 million in contributions and $20.9 million in loan funds. These projects included the construction of schools, highways, water and sewer systems. Another program, the special highways agreement, provided for eight projects in the western region of the province at an estimated cost of $11.6 million. This was funded totally by the federal government.
Under ARDA III, the Port aux Basques industrial water supply program provided for the installation of a water supply system to service fish plants in Port aux Basques. The total estimated cost of this project is $810,000 and the DREE share is $405,000. Under the ARDA III agricultural program there are plans for a western agricultural centre, a western swine breeding station, and a western veterinary clinic and soil and feed testing laboratory with an estimated total cost of more than $515,000.
The department's regional development incentives program has had a measure of success as well. Federal incentives amounting to $3.5 million have been granted to industrial projects in the region.
I believe the hon. member will agree with me that the federal government has been more than fair in allocating funds and resources to western Newfoundland. I am sure
Western Newfoundland Economic Development he will agree that more is required. I can say that a lot more is contemplated, because over the past 12 months the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) has been visiting all provinces in an effort to ensure the fullest possible use and co-ordination of manpower and resources to fight regional development problems. He has signed general development agreements with all provinces, and Newfoundland is a front-runner in terms of the signing of subsidiary agreements under this important new policy. On this point the hon. member's motion for the production of papers relating to these subsidiary agreements was accepted earlier by the government. I want to let the hon. member know that translation is almost complete and the requested documents will be forwarded shortly to the appropriate officers of the House. In the meantime I can certainly provide copies in English, if that is helpful.


Jack Marshall: I have them already.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I know you have them, but I want to place it on the record because too often if you do not say it, you get a backlash in two or three weeks time saying we did not offer them and you did not receive them. I am pleased to hear the hon. member say he has them in his hands and is quite happy with them.
The new federal-provincial approach calls for joint cooperation and planning by both senior levels of government. Subdividing each province into economic units with separate planning bodies has not been proposed as an effective means of solving local disparities. Instead the emphasis has been laid on co-operation in seeking to identify development opportunities wherever they may be, and employing all the available resources of both governments to ensure their successful development.
Western Newfoundland has already benefited from this new approach with the signing of five subsidiary agreements. They cover forestry, highways, the Gros Morne Park, fisheries marine service centres and special fish plant water supply systems. Additional subsidiary agreements are being negotiated and will be announced when they are completed.
The subsidiary agreement covering forestry will also benefit western Newfoundland. Over $30 million, 90 per cent of which will be funded by the federal government, will be spent in the province. The agreement covers the construction of access roads, acquisition of forest land, forest improvement and inventory, and research and development of harvesting and utilization techniques.
The highway subsidiary provides for several highway construction and paving projects on the Great Northern Peninsula at an estimated cost of $6.7 million. DREE's share of this cost will be $6 million. The road to Daniel's Harbour will service a new zinc mine expected to come on stream in 1975.
The Gros Morne Park area development subsidiary agreement provides for tourism planning studies, community infrastructure and road construction projects to help the residents of the areas near Gros Morne Park benefit from the development of a major national park by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The total estimated cost of agreement is $15.1 million, and DREE's share is $13.6 million.
4176

Western Newfoundland Economic Development
The fisheries marine service centre program subsidiary agreement provices for the construction of marine service centres at a total estimated cost of $2.4 million. The DREE share is $2.2 million.
The special fish plant water supply system subsidiary agreement provides for the installation of water supply systems to service fish plants at Port aux Basques and Burnt Islands at a total estimated cost of $1.6 million. The DREE share is $1.4 million.
Many provinces feel the same as the hon. member. However, with the present implementing of decentralization of DREE, the MDM in the area can in fact make decisions. He ought to be given that chance. I think all members will agree this is the best system.
This is one of the first areas in which the federal government has instituted decentralization. It should now be given a chance to see how it works out. I believe the present staff of DREE will work in the manner the hon. member would like to see. I am sure this will be the case.
I have tried to provide the House with as much information as possible on the new efforts by DREE in Newfoundland, and specifically in Western Newfoundland. Similar intensive activity is taking place in other provinces. There are many areas in my own province of Manitoba, for example, which require this kind of assistance and I know a lot of work is being done there by government officials under the general development agreement to ensure that the regions which are hardest pressed get priority attention. Western Newfoundland certainly qualifies for this special attention.


Walter David Baker: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question! Everybody is for it, why not pass it?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thought for a few moments that you could not see me; it is reassuring to know that my diet is taking effect. I want to assure the hon. member for Humb-er-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) that I really believe in his intentions. I believe he has very good intentions and that he always represents his constituency well. But I disagree completely with his motion. I fail to see the advantage of dividing ourselves along regional lines as he would have us do.	i
In my opinion it is unwise to get into the habit of naming advisory committees. Hon. members of this House should do a great deal of this work. They should certainly seek advice from committees in their ridings. But advisory committees tend, ultimately, to seek executive roles and faced with this situation we, as members, may be tempted to abdicate authority which is ours.
Then again, where would the process of division end? In Ontario there would probably be a demand for a separate advisory committee to represent the northern part of that province; the process of regional division would begin all over again.


As to "La belle Province", I feel that in the City of Montreal, they would try to set up committees in Verdun, La Salle, NDG and Westmount.

I grew up in Verdun, Mr. Speaker, and I know that Montreal is really a suburb of Verdun. We did not receive the kind of attention we should have received, and if we had been appointed to an advisory committee we would never have settled for giving advice. It is an easy way out to give a committee an advisory role, deny it an executive role it would like to assert, and then ignore its advice. I should like to see members such as the hon. member and people like myself go back to our areas, form'committees to advise us and then assure that this advice reaches the place where authority really rests, and that is the ministers' offices. I agree it is perhaps not possible in this day and age for ministers to look after all the tasks allotted to them in this fashion.
We might consider what is done in other parliaments, realizing that parliamentary secretaries, such as my hon. friend who has just spoken, are quite able, quite distinguished, and have a good deal of ability. Members such as these might be given greater authority in the administration of certain portfolios, taking on a role much like that of an under-minister in the British parliament. It might be a good thing if five or six members, presently parliamentary secretaries, were given authoritative roles to play within their departments. I sometimes feel very disturbed when I am denied assistance from the hon. member for Winnipeg over there because I feel he has so much to contribute. It might be that ministers, instead of forming caucuses only within their own party could bring other members of parliament into active roles together with those parliamentary secretaries, thus constituting a committee along the lines of an advisory committee which was capable of exerting pressure on executive authority.


An hon. Member:: You were referring to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: You wanted me to say that. Actually I always forget which part of Winnipeg the hon. member comes from since we saw Jesus Christ Superstar together, because we were both convinced after we left England that only he and the man in the play could walk on water.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are on the
wrong diet.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: Lest anyone misunderstand that remark I intend not to let anything cross my lips except water until I visit Mr. Speaker's office for Irish coffee.
I am serious, though, when I say that if greater emphasis is to be placed on recognition of regional needs, this task should be performed by members themselves. Those of us on the back benches over here want very much to play a part in it and we invite backbenchers on the other side to join us, realizing that there will be many occasions on which we should stand together in affirming what is good for Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Prosper Boulanger (Mercier):: Mr. Speaker, I must regretfully advise the House that once again-tough luck!-I was given only a couple of minutes to prepare. I shall probably be accused of wanting to kill the motion introduced by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall), a man I hold in high esteem and whose courage I admire. But rising after such eloquent speakers as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion and my distinguished colleague from Hamilton Mountain (Mr. MacFarlane), there is in fact very little I can add on the subject of this motion, except this: as a number of hon. members in the House, I feel that the mover certainly deserves the praise of his colleagues in the House. What really attracted my attention, however, is the fact that, when a while ago the hon. member who spoke before me and whom I always call the socialist member from... six o'clock already? I have unfortunately not had the time to prepare myself!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the hour for private members' business has expired.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Gillespie:
That the	House of Commons approve the government's
program of guideline dates for metric conversion;
And that a message be sent to the Senate informing Their Honours that this House has adopted a resolution approving a program of guideline dates for metric conversion, and requesting Their Honours to unite with this House in the approval of the same by filling up the blanks in the resolution with the words "Senate and".
A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, to continue my remarks in regard to metric conversion, at five o'clock I was quoting some comments reportedly made by Mr. J. Kenneth Clark, who is the assistant to the vice-president of Simpsons-Sears of Toronto. The article continues:
He noted that the retailing industry is progressively becoming more self-serve, "forcing the customer to become more self-reliant," and thereby reducing the role of the sales person.
The cost of conversion to metric units for pre-packaged, non-food products after August 31, 1975, will be considerable, Mr. Clark said, but the change will probably not register with most consumers.
Metric Conversion
"If it is noticed at all it will probably be thought of as information placed there for the convenience of new Canadians who have recently come to Canada from Europe."
But when hard conversion (changing containers to even metric sizes) takes place, Mr. Clark speculated that "there may be a boom in the sale of conversion texts, slide rules and rulers."
But for retailers, the problem with hard conversion will be a proliferation of sizes. "I understand that the men's dress shirt industry in the United Kingdom will now grade collar sizes in one centimetre intervals in place of the historical one-half inch.
"This will increase the number of collar sizes offered from eight to 11. This increase may cause little concern to the merchants in Britain because they do not offer a choice of sleeve lengths. If we were to follow suit, our stockkeeping units would increase from 24 to 33 per colour or pattern.
"However, it is possible that by grading in two centimetre intervals from 35 to 45 centimetres we could reduce the number of collar sizes offered from eight to six and our stockkeeping units from 24 to 18 and still provide an acceptable fit for our customers."
One of the more serious problems faced by retailers will be in maintaining inventory of parts manufactured using both metric and avoirdupois units.
"When the appliance industry converts to metric, the retailer or his supplier will have to maintain a long term inventory of parts manufactured to both standards. The same is true of plumbing fixtures and
systems".
Those are a few of the comments made by Mr. Clark in regard to the problems facing business in Canada and why it is important that a proper bill be brought in to deal with the metric conversion program.
I should like to refer to some further comments made to the Conference Board in Canada recently. It was claimed that the federal government's information program to educate consumers on the metric system is inadequate. Elizabeth Bond, chairman of a sector committee of the Metric Commission in Canada, told a one-day seminar on the metric system in Toronto that there was little hope for improvement in the near future. She noted that the greatest obstacle to conversion to a metric system lies in the groundless fears of consumers. Her committee has attempted to come to grips with the over-riding need for consumer education by creating a public information subcommittee. However, the committee remains unconvinced that it has had any major impact upon the commission's program or lack thereof. Sadly, this means that much of the information burden must remain with the private sector.
This is why we are questioning this $7 million expenditure. The government seems to have done a very poor selling job; it has not got the message across to the Canadian people or manufacturers.
In addition, fears expressed by small businessmen have been pointed out by Mr. John Bulloch, the federation president for Canada's 650,000 small business proprietors. He claims that these businessmen cannot mind their stores and pay for Canada's conversion to the metric system at the same time, and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business has so advised Ottawa. Mr. Bulloch, the federation president, has called for financial and technical aid to help small and medium sized business absorb the impact of conversion. As I pointed out earlier today, Mr. Speaker, the United States is bringing in a system of subsidies to help, for example, mechanics, and this is something that will have to be done in Canada.
28996-S9'/2

Metric Conversion
Mr. Bulloch told the Conference Board in Canada that a milligram of prevention is worth a kilogram of cure. He was referring to the federal policy of allowing the costs of conversion to fall where they may. His remarks were made in a speech to the board's Toronto conference on the impact of metric conversion on North America. Mr. Bulloch went on to say:
We recommend a program of grants and low-interest loans to assist in the financing of metric conversion.
Mention was made earlier today that we should have a system of low cost loans, and I hope that the minister will give this serious consideration. Mr. Bulloch continued:
Large companies have technical, financial and managerial resources for planning their own metric changeover and dealing with it over the long haul. Small businesses do not. It is the responsibility of government to ensure that small businessmen, including self-employed craftsmen, are properly informed and their interests adequately understood and represented.
Mr. Bulloch criticized the use of the federal Metric Commission to "implement a program for the entire nation before the policy decisions have been fully approved at the parliamentary level."
Small business is concerned that decisions are being made by administrators before legislators have done their homework.
"The work of the commission should receive parliamentary examination and approval immediately. It is difficult to expect provincial governments and business to be in metric changeover planning so long as there has been no bill or joint resolution before parliament.
Also Mr. Speaker, Mr. J. H. Kluge, President of Ascolec-tric Ltd. of Brantford told a seminar on the metric conversion program:
Some companies or industries will be hard hit by foreign imports once the Canadian market is open to products now being sold in the metric world, but which could not sell here because our market was too small for them to make special designs in imperial dimensions.
He further stated:
Government and industry will have to co-operate to a degree as never before to avoid a loss of employment in the secondary manufacturing industry.
Mr. Kluge said that timing was critical and:
We must avoid opening the market to foreign imports before the domestic manufacturers are ready to compete on even terms.
Conversely, there are many opportunities that will be presented to Canadian businesses. Mr. Kluge stated:
If a company is not prepared for this change it may become a traumatic and costly experience later on.
The article continues:
He noted that the impact of metric conversion on Canada's foreign trade cannot be generalized. "About $1.5 billion or 8 per cent by value of our 1973 export may be affected sharply. This amount of export must and will increase as new opportunities are realized."
He further stated:
Industrial management has been urged to invite union participation in planning for conversion to the metric system to avoid disputes arising from fear of change.
The article then continues as follows:
A. S. Tirrell, Canadian Labour Congress representative to the Metric Commission, told the Conference Board in Canada that relatively few union members would be directly affected by the conversion at their places of work but "there will be substantial segments of the work force where the effects will be impressive and critical.
"It is within such segments that Canada can ill afford any serious dislocation of the work force, with its resultant unrest and turmoil."

He said labour considers metric conversion inevitable and desirable but the willingness of workers, through understanding and fair dealing, to accept the conversion is vital.
"All unions will take actions to ensure that their members are not adversely affected, regardless of the degree to which their jobs are measurement sensitive. They will attempt to protect their members against loss of income, employment security, promotional opportunity, job mobility, and against the burden of any costs additional to those which may be already borne by them.
"Managements would be wise to take the unions into their confidence and afford them participation in the planning process."
I have received representations from many businessmen in my riding, and I should just like to read part of the
comments of one of them. He said:
We fabricate and supply reinforcing steel for reinforced concrete construction. Our products are used entirely within two prairie provinces and we do not engage in overseas trade. Changing to the metric system will greatly increase our costs due to a complete change of our measuring system. We believe that the change to the metric system will greatly increase costs in Canada and will not accomplish anything except for a few firms engaged in overseas trade. These firms should gear up for the dual system of metric and English standards and bear the cost in order to engage in their particular market.
This gentleman studied the situation and could see no benefits for his particular firm. He suggested that all this was going to do was add to the cost of manufacturing his product, and of course this will be passed on to the consumer, contributing to higher inflation.
Even as late as last week there were comments in the news media in respect of the metric conversion program. I should just like to read a few comments made by Mr. Gerald Hodge, the Director of the School of Urban and Regional Planning at Queen's University. He states:
In the sixties you were given to understand that when you passed 30 you were over the hill. In this metrication decade, the cataclysmic year has reached right down to the pre-adolescents.
One Montreal educator thinks that anyone beyond Grade 5 (10 years old) will never fully adjust to the metric system.
You're probably not much awed by this prospect. This may mean that the Canadian Metric Commission has already got you to think metric. Or it may indicate a certain resignation to the thrust of events; the Metric Commission seems to have convinced a lot of businessmen, newspapers, labour unions, etc., to say "it's inevitable".
Or it could be simple, old apathy and, in that case, maybe there is still some hope that this momentous step won't be taken in such a sheeplike way by Canadians.
Have you ever wondered, as I have, why this country is involved in such a specious exercise? Who benefits from metrication? Who pays? Are the advantages as substantial as the claims for the metric system
suggest?
There are three general areas in which we are being led to expect extensive payoffs by converting Canada to the metric system of measurement. These are (1) manufactured goods sold in world export markets, (2) the learning capabilities of people, and (3) simplicity and convenience in packaging, purchasing and quality-control. Let's examine each of these areas and test the validity of the claims.
(1) World export markets will be thrown wide open to our manufacturers if we become a metric country. "It has been estimated," the reports always seem to say, "that Canada loses between $100 million and $200 million in foreign trade a year" because it has not yet converted. The Metric Commission confidently reports that exports should increase up to 10 per cent.
This is mere pie-in-the-sky. Consider two aspects of this matter.
First, world markets are not just sitting there waiting for us to exploit them by making sure our screws fit and our sizes are the same. A lot of pretty efficient firms in other countries know these sources of wealth, too.

Second, world trade is a two-way business. Once the Canadian scene is metricated it will be an easy matter for foreign firms producing for the metric world to expand production and export to us. That old imperial system of feet, inches, gallons and quarts, it seems, acts somewhat as a "tariff barrier" in favour of our firms.
Look around you at all the products made in metricated countries such as Japan, Italy, Sweden and Czechoslovakia. They may be made to metric scale such as your toaster, your Toyota, or your transistor and you never really gave it a thought, or had to. When was the last time you had a problem getting a French bicycle, an Italian auto, or a Japanese hairdryer fixed because it was a metricated unit?
You may have had troubles for lots of other reasons, but not likely for the measurement scale it was designed in. And much the same applies to the Spaniard driving a British car or the Swede using a U.S. computer.
It was mentioned earlier in the debate today that the school boards are concerned about metric conversion. I have some correspondence here from the Manitoba Association of School Trustees. They state in part:
Last spring, MAST took a very quick look at the cost implications of conversion to the metric system. That study indicated that costs of conversion for the academic stream would be about $4 per pupil and about $50 per pupil in the vocational area.
Who is to pay these increased costs? Will they be paid by increases in municipal taxes or will the provinces come up with the money? This is a very costly item and that is why a proper bill should be brought in on metric conversion so it is properly debated in the House and in committee rather than being put through as a resolution. The association went on to say:
Please keep in mind that the above figures were developed from a very superficial and quick study-your cost determinations might be substantially different.
Metric conversion is a federal policy and will be a fact by 1980. Because it is a federal policy our position has been that the implementation of such federal policy should be at the cost of the federal government.
Here is another statement made by Mr. Donald Eyles, President of Metricanada Consultants, a company formed to advise private and government organizations on metric conversion. Mr. Eyles stated:
Metric conversion in Canada is rapidly becoming a mess. Contrary to the unctuous platitudes coming out of Ottawa the Canadian metric conversion program is characterized by political expediency, indecisiveness and, above all, lack of leadership.
Understanding our predicament requires some background information. The basic question-'Why are we going metric anyway?'-has a simple (and perhaps unpalatable) answer:
The critical factor in the matter of North American adoption of metric measurement has been the emergence, since World War II, of the U.S. international corporations that now largely dominate U.S. foreign and domestic policy.
These multinationals have, between them, about 3,000 overseas manufacturing plants with an annual production valued at $225 billion-half the parent companies' total production. These 'global' companies want standardization in their operations, particularly in design, which leads to interchangeability of parts.
The domestic effect on the U.S. of the independent adoption of metrics by the multinationals is already immense. Two years ago a few major companies, including GM, recognizing the increasing impact of their direct suppliers alone (the top few multinationals are believed to have between 200,000 and 250,000 suppliers) required their metric programs to be co-ordinated. They formed the American National Metric Council to provide the necessary co-ordination and in two years the council has attracted well over 1,000 members whose names read like a Who's Who of American industry.
Metric Conversion
Various U.S. (and Canadian) government agencies are members, as well as a few Canadian private companies (Metricanada included).
A U.S. bill that would have set up a federal co-ordinating body failed to pass last May for procedural reasons. Indications are that a new bill will be presented to the Congress in a short while with good chances of passage.
However, our own federal government considers it politically expedient to await the U.S. legislation so that all blame for what undoubtedly will antagonize a few voters can 'officially' be directed at Washington.
Canada still lacks any private company or industry group, free of U.S. control, that could assume the initiative for metric conversion taken years ago by the U.S. multinationals.
As just one example, take the construction industry, with its many components. There are owners, developers, subcontractors, tradesmen from sheet-metal workers to bricklayers, various professional bodies, component manufacturers and government regulatory bodies.
Some people in construction have been pressing for a deadline in 1977 after which all construction components would be standardized in metric terms: agreed dimensions for bricks, concrete blocks, steel joists, door frames, plywood sheets-and on and on.
The problem is that buildings that'll go up in 1977 are being designed right now. The designers need to know what component sizes to use. The component manufacturers don't want to change their present specifications until they know whether there's a demand for new ones.
The complexity of the industry isn't really the problem; it's the lack of leadership. In this particular industry the federal government could exercise dominant leadership through its Department of Public Works.
When the federal government published a White Paper on Metric Conversion in January, 1970, it obviously did not foresee the political hot potato it would later become. The guidelines for conversion established at that time were essentially that conversion should be voluntary but co-ordinated and that there would be no subsidies for any costs incurred.
So one can see the concern there is in the country. Many businesses will have serious problems in dealing with metric conversion. Mr. Eyles closes by saying:
I do know, from unsolicited testimony, that many people involved with metric conversion committees, some at Metric Commission level, are beginning to feel that their time and expense is wasted. Meaningful decisions are not being made. The Weary Willies and Tired Tims exploit the timidity and indecisiveness fostered by a leadership vacuum-leadership we properly expect from our national government.
I cannot help but emphasize that we need a separate and individual bill rather than this resolution in dealing with metric conversion. This matter is far from being made clear to the public and the business community all over Canada, and should be still further considered by a standing committee.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, a sound and accurate system of measurement has been fundamental for civilization from earliest times. One way this is shown is by the many references in both the Old and New Testaments to weights, measures and balances. The Old Testament in Leviticus commands that "ye shall do not unrighteousness in weight or in measure". The prophet, Micah, complains of "the scant measure that is abominable".
The motion before the House involves a decision that is one of the most significant that members of parliament can be called on to make, although this may not seem to be so at first glance. Our system of weights and measures is not only important to our ability to exchange goods and services within this country and with the world, it is also part of the essential fabric of our daily existence in an organized society.

Metric Conversion
When it decides on this resolution the House will be taking a formal position for the first time on the idea that this country should change from its traditional inch-pound system of measurement to the metric system. However, the House is being asked by the government to say not simply whether a change to the metric system is desirable in principle, but instead that it approves the government program of guideline dates for metric conversion.
One would have thought therefore that these dates would be spelled out fully in the resolution. Curiously enough, the government has not done this. I wonder how the government can expect the House to make a decision with such far-reaching implications for every Canadian without even putting before it formally the basic information required to give the resolution any meaning.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) may give such information in his speech in support of the resolution, but this is not the same as stating it formally in the resolution itself. The failure to do this gives no opportunity to members of parliament to consider and do research on the suitability of the guideline dates prior to the beginning of the debate on the resolution. It means that this consideration can be given only during the debate itself which, unless it is lengthy or is adjourned, or unless the resolution is referred to a committee, does not provide an adequate opportunity, in my view, to examine basic and fundamental aspects of the matter.
One can also ask why the government is asking the House to deal with this important matter by resolution. A resolution does not have the legal force of an act of parliament. It is not binding on anyone in the sense that not following it would bring any criminal or civil sanction.
Using a resolution in a matter such as this has at least one major flaw from the point of view of parliamentary consideration of the question at issue. The flaw is that when the House considers a resolution, our rules do not provide any automatic provision for committee study of the resolution or its subject matter, as is the case with most bills. This means that we have no opportunity to question the minister or his officials directly and in detail on the practical effect of metric conversion on our daily lives and our commercial activity, both domestic and foreign, nor can we question them on the costs of this conversion and how they will be assumed.
We are unable to hear the views on these matters of witnesses from business, labour and consumer groups, as well as concerned citizens who are not formally members of any of these kinds of organizations. We cannot question the minister, officials, and people outside the government on whether the dates proposed for metric conversion, whatever they may be, are in fact the best for any particular industry sector in the light of the circumstances most relevant to that sector.
As I have said, the resolution does not in fact set out any guideline dates at all. However, a body called the Metric Commission has developed its own ideas as to what they should be. According to a document published by the

Metric Commission entitled "Canada Prepares for Metric Conversion":
In September of 1973 the Canadian Metric Commission outlined a list of target dates for the project. They proposed that the four phases-investigation, planning, scheduling and implementation-be completed by the end of 1980 when the normal day to day transactions in the economy would be entirely in metric units.
The publication goes on to say:
The investigation phase is now under way and should reach its peak in 1974. The planning and scheduling phases will extend through 1974 and 1975 with a view to being substantially completed in 1976. According to the proposed targets, implementation should start in 1975 and reach its peak in 1977-1978, although some industries would no doubt continue operating with the imperial units for a longer period.
The commission in effect calls for one single implementation date of 1980 for the entire economy, with no indication as to why it considered that date suitable for all sectors in it. The minister in his speech today has endorsed that date and the others developed by the Metric Commission. Even in the absence of an opportunity for committee study of the resolution, I think the House can insist that the government prove its case that the guideline dates that it is proposing are the best ones for the country or, for that matter, any guideline dates are appropriate and needed.
In January of 1970 the government tabled in the House a white paper on metric conversion in Canada. In that white paper the government took the position that:
The eventual adoption and Canadian usage of a single coherent measurement system based on metric units should be acknowledged as inevitable and in the national interest.
However, I should say that nowhere in the white paper did the government say it would be proposing a system of guideline dates. Instead it pointed out with regard to the implementation of metric conversion "there will be wide variation from sector to sector" and that "wide flexibility in timing would appear to be necessary". In other words, the Metric Commission beginning in 1963 has developed a set of guideline dates, including one for implementation, which would be the same for the entire economy. However, the government's original white paper called for a high degree of flexibility on this with, what I would take to be, dates varying by sector rather than one final date for all sectors, a date now only a few years away.
According to the white paper the government appeared to be taking this position because of the differing circumstances and the resulting cost considerations in many sectors of the Canadian industry. The white paper stressed that this was particularly important because "change would likely be closely related to progress in the United States toward conversion, reflecting the complex interlocking of industrial technology in North America." The white paper went on to say:
At present, it is the United States market which absorbs a major and increasing share of Canada's exports of manufactured goods. Some major sectors of Canadian industry are closely involved corporately and in respect of technology with the United States. This linking of industry in the two countries extends to markets both in North America and beyond. In these cases, it may prove wise to allow the timing and process of conversion to be closely related to the development of United States practice.
Yet the government has provided little information as to whether the guidelines it is proposing are in fact consistent with the pace of metric conversion in the United States. It is my understanding that, in point of fact, we are

ahead of the United States. The United States Congress last year refused to pass a law committing that country to metric conversion by certain specific and fairly early dates.
While we are concerned about the degree to which our best customer continues to be the United States, this is one of the facts of our current existence. Any effort to build up a new trading link with Europe and other parts of the world to lessen our dependence on the United States market, although welcome, will take some time to develop. One can also wonder to what extent this option will be able to replace in fact our links with the United States market which is still the largest and most wealthy one in the world today.
One can also question the appropriateness of a government body, the Metric Commission, developing as early as in 1963 a set of target dates to implement metric conversion, and going on to work with business and industry to reach these goals without any parliamentary approval. One can question the appropriateness of the government coming along to ask for such approval only when the commission itself is well along in the final implementation phase.
In fact the commission appears to have been given by the government a role far beyond what the government said in its policy white paper the commission would have. This document said only that there would be "a full-time preparatory commission ... appointed to advise upon and co-ordinate overall planning of the conversion process".
One can ask how the commission came to have the task of actually overseeing the implementation of the conversion process, rather than being limited to co-ordinating its planning.
I have asked whether a resolution is the best parliamentary means to examine adequately the suitability of the government's program of guideline dates. We are dealing with a very serious issue. The suitability of these dates has a lot to do with the ability of our economy effectively to carry on both domestic and foreign business, its ability to meet import competition and, above all, it has a lot to do with what the actual costs may be for business and industry, and therefore ultimately for the public, of converting to the metric system.
If this is a matter of serious concern for any sector of Canadian industry, in my view it is crucial for a sector such as the auto industry which is highly integrated with its counterpart in the United States. The Canadian auto industry does not simply export much of its final production to the United States. Canadian manufactured parts are exported to the United States to be incorporated, along with American manufactured parts, in cars assembled in that country. These cars are then sold in both Canada and the United States. American manufactured parts are imported into Canada to be incorporated, along with Canadian manufactured parts, in cars assembled here which are sold in both the United States and Canada.
How can an implementation date of 1980 be practical for the Canadian auto industry unless this is the firm date for the American auto industry as well? What assurance can the minister and the government give us that there will be
Metric Conversion
identical and parallel guideline dates for both of these industries?
There is at present concern about the future of the Canadian auto industry and employment in it because of the decline of the American economy. We have to be certain, therefore, that the government's pace of moving to the metric system in Canada will not be such as to give the American parent companies an excuse not to carry out further investment in new plants and equipment in Canada, or to transfer production to the United States to serve the needs of that market.
I have made reference to the cost of metric conversion. The white paper and the Metric Commission's own publications keep saying that benefits will outweigh costs, although they never give us any detailed cost benefit analysis to back this up, Mr. Speaker. I am, however, inclined to think that over a period of time the benefits of metric conversion, properly handled, will in fact outweigh the costs, but this will not necessarily be the case in the short or medium term for every industry or every Canadian. Until today the government has not shown any interest in special programs to help those Canadian businesses which will be forced to bear a greater share of the burden of moving to metric conversion than others in the economy. The program announced today does nothing about dealing with the additional cost to workers who have to buy their own tools.
The government has until today always taken the position that since all Canadians will ultimately benefit, the costs should lie where they fall. However, this overlooks the fact, as I have said, that metric conversion will likely carry a greater burden for some Canadians than for others, and some are better able to deal with these cost burdens than others.
It is likely that large businesses with a high degree of economic power will be better able to absorb the costs, or what is more likely, to pass them on to the public in the form of higher prices. This is something which cannot be done by the small businessman or the independent skilled tradesmen or the worker. It will be harder for many small businesses than for larger ones to absorb additional costs of metric conversion arising out of maintaining dual inventories of goods or replacement parts, as well as the cost of converting or replacing machinery and weighing devices. Again, as I have said, the government's program announced today, while helpful, contains a serious omission. It will not be available to help workers.
Many workers who are not self employed have to provide their own tools. For example, it can cost an auto mechanic up to $2,000 for a full set of mechanic's tools. The $150 income tax deduction for employment expenses is obviously no help to a worker in dealing with these kinds of unusual costs.
There is already a precedent for the government taking special measures in the interests of an entire economy when it causes the restructuring of an industry. These special measures are used to help those businesses and workers on whom it is found the burden of the cost of this restructuring falls in greater measure than on the rest of the population. One example of this is what the govern-

Metric Conversion
ment did to create special programs to help both firms and workers in the auto industry to adjust to the extra cost and dislocation caused by the change in that industry created by the auto pact.
I believe that in the course of this debate the government should give a commitment that it will help not only Canadian small businessmen but also Canadian workers to bear any additional special burden caused by conversion to the metric system. Carrying out this commitment could require programs of special grants, or low interest loans, or special tax exemptions not only for business and also for workers who have high one-time costs for replacing tools and equipment which they must supply out of their own pockets.
It has not been proven that metric conversion will benefit all Canadians equally, certainly not in the short and medium term. This is unlikely to be the case for a host of small businesses serving the domestic market, especially in the retail and service field. This is not so for the skilled tradesmen and repairmen who also serve the local market. Therefore the government must make the kind of commitment to which I have referred for additional measures of assistance in these kinds of cases, not only for business but also for workers.
There is another area of concern which the government appears to have overlooked. I refer to the possibility that some unscrupulous elements in the business world will use the changeover to the metric system to increase profits unjustly at the expense of consumers. They would in effect use the opportunity to increase their profit margins by maintaining the same price even when they shift to supplying their product in a metric size, which in fact is somewhat smaller than the size previously used. For example, the consumer might have the general idea that the metric measure for volume closest to the quart is the litre, and that the metric measure closest to a three pound package in weight is the kilogram. However, the litre is equal to only some 88 per cent of the volume of a quart. A kilogram is equal to only 2.205 pounds. Obviously if an unscrupulous businessman charges the same for a litre of his product as he does for a quart, this will mean a substantial price increase for the consumer and a substantial increase in profits for the businessman.
The government has not said that it will have any special program to prevent the consumer from being ripped off in the way I have outlined. It has said nothing about creating any mechanism to prevent this rip off from occurring, to impose sanctions on anyone attempting to take advantage of the consumer in this way, and to get redress for the consumer where, in spite of the sanctions, this is found to have occurred.
A businessman might say that metric conversion means added costs which he had to recover through increased prices, but these increased costs would not go on forever. They would be recovered over a certain limited number of sales in the future. The government has proposed no mechanism, as I have said, whereby these claims could be checked out and the businessman subjected to appropriate sanctions unless he was found to have passed on only the actual true additional cost of conversion.
Our laws on misleading advertising, and packaging and labelling have not been set up to deal with the precise

kind of situation I have outlined today. The unscrupulous businessman, would probably not actually be advertising that he is providing the same quantity for the same price as before metric conversion. He will be improving his profit margins by taking advantage of the unfamiliarity of the consumer with the new system in comparison with the existing inch-pound system, as well as of the difficulty the average consumer would have in making the calculations necessary to find out the facts.
The government's request that the House approve guidelines for metric conversion is another argument for the speedy presentation by the government and the implementation of the anti profiteering bill. However, such a bill, whether it is called "anti profiteering'.' or "price justification", would be only a partial answer to the problem. It would likely be designed to apply primarily to broad categories of goods and services rather than to a large number of individual transactions in many areas of the economy.
The present Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) told both the Financial Post and the Financial Times last fall that he considers such a bill to be "window dressing" and that he hopes he will never have to use it. In addition, the effect of such a bill in preventing the consumer from being taken advantage of by unscrupulous businessmen during metric conversion is hypothetical since such a bill has not yet been presented to the House by the government, and there is no firm indication when it will do so. In any event, I think there is need for a special government measure in addition to an anti profiteering bill to deal with the special problem metric conversion can cause to consumers.
There is also a great need for a better information program to educate consumers about the metric system and metric conversion. According to the Globe and Mail on Wednesday, December 18, Elizabeth Bond, who, I think, is a consumer representative and chair person of a Metric Commission sector committee on consumer aspects of conversion, told a conference board seminar that the federal government's information program to educate consumers in the metric system was inadequate. The article said that her committee has attempted to come to grips with the overriding need for consumer education by creating a public information subcommittee. However, the committee, according to the article, remains unconvinced, and I quote:
... that we have had any major impact on the commission's program or lack thereof.
I think the points I have outlined demonstrate why more than what may turn out to be a relatively brief general debate in this House is required in order for members of parliament to make a wise decision as to whether they approve the government's program for metric conversion. Detailed answers to the kinds of questions I have raised today in a positive and constructive sense are required. But these can come only from the kind of study of the resolution that can best be provided by a parliamentary committee. I hope it will be possible to refer the resolution to a committee for this purpose.


The government, before a final decision is taken on this resolution, should also give commitments that it will provide help for both small businessmen and workers on whom the cost burden of conversion will fall more heavily than on others in the economy. It must also give consumers a commitment that it will firmly and actively protect them against the kind of rip-off I have described that is possible during the course of metric conversion.
I want to recognize the useful work of the Metric Commission and, in particular, the work of the volunteer members from many industry and community groups on its sector committees. But many small businessmen and workers, as well as many individual Canadians, do not belong to any of the organizations represented on the sector committees. It is not the Metric Commission and those committees which will be held accountable by the Canadian public for the effects and costs on them of metric conversion. Instead, the public will look to its elected members of parliament.
Therefore the ultimate responsibility to the people of Canada as a whole for this kind of decision is that of the members of parliament. Therefore members have a responsibility to have the government carry out metric conversion in ways that effectively deal with the problems I have outlined. In doing so the government will be carrying out the general commitment expected of it on this by Canadians, a commitment which, if I may conclude as I began, can be expressed in the words of the Old Testament, in Deuteronomy, as that of providing "a perfect and just weight-a perfect and just measure" or, in the words of the New Testament, in Luke, as "good measure pressed down and running over."
Ensuring that the government carries out this commitment should be the objective of all in this House as they consider and decide on this important resolution on metric conversion.


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to speak after the hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray). Let me say amen to many of the things he said. I listened with interest to what many participating in this debate said, and will not repeat their ideas. Let me make this point, however. I am not alone in being concerned about metric conversion. Many of our people are worried by it. Many senior citizens worry about metric conversion. A lady who came to my office this past week end wanted to know about metric conversion, and wanted to submit a petition to the minister which would express the concern of the group she represents. I told her that unless the petition was presented by Sunday it would be too late, as this measure would be before the House early this week. Metric conversion in Canada would be as certain as death and taxes. I think we know how certain death and taxes are.
After a certain date, temperatures will be announced on the radio and television in degrees Celsius. Many people will not know how to convert degrees Celsius into degrees Fahrenheit, at least not for a while. Therefore I think that the temperature should be announced in degrees Celsius and Fahrenheit until people get used to the metric scale. I talked with my honoured and knowledgeable colleague in the medical profession and said, "I know my normal temperature in degrees Fahrenheit is 98.3; what is it in degrees
Metric Conversion
Celsius?" He stopped to think, then said he thought it was 38.3. I ask my colleague, the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk), am I right?


Mr. Yewchuk:: The hon. member is pretty close.


Stan Darling: When I was a student many years ago arithmetic was probably my worst subject. I see my leader smiling at me. Perhaps he thinks I was bad in many more subjects. Be that as it may, I am told that sums in the metric system will be much easier to do, so there is some consolation for those who are poor at arithmetic. I am told that anybody under the age of ten will not have trouble with the metric system. My six-year-old grandson is already learning in the metric system and having more fun than I ever had.
Small businessmen in Canada worry about how much conversion will cost in dollars and cents. The whole question boils down to this: are they to make a little money from their operation, or are they to pour money into a conversion process which they may not be able to recoup? The previous speaker and others mentioned mechanics tools. Mechanics will be allowed up to $150 for conversion. That is not enough. I hope the minister will consider introducing a training program and pay mechanics for time they must take off work in order to learn the new system.
As other speakers have mentioned, it will cost merchants a great deal to convert scales to metric measurement. Recently I had lunch with a man who owns a fair-sized I.G.A. store in Ottawa. He said he had bought a pair of scales for $9,000. He said that it would cost at least $4,000 to convert them. I thought he would still be ahead by $5,000, but he said no, he would have to scrap those scales and buy a new set. I am told that it will cost 28,000 odd retailers around $50 million to convert, and that is a conservative estimate. We know that much of the conversion cost will be tax deductible. Nevertheless, many small corner store businessmen are not making enough to pay taxes, let alone enough to pay for conversion. Perhaps the minister would consider giving such people a grant, to enable them to convert when the time comes.
We are told that the United States is embarked on a conversion program but that it is proceeding more slowly than we are. In my view both countries should convert at the same pace. It is well known that over 69 per cent of our trade is with the United States. Therefore we should not move more quickly than that country in converting to the metric system, or we may be the losers. An hon. member mentioned that conversion bills have come before Congress for the past three years, but none has passed so far. Certainly conversion has been discussed in that country, and they know it is coming.
I am a real estate broker and metric conversion will open a can of worms for my profession. It will be extremely difficult to convert measurements on present land deeds to the metric system. I admit that the idea of inches, feet, chains and rods may be complicated. However, if we start now to convert all the deeds in Canada which are on the old basis, they probably will not all be converted for 500 years. Not too many of us will be around then. However, this is something which must be seriously considered.
4184


Metric Conversion
I believe that 94 per cent of the population has now converted to the metric system. That figure was staggering to me. As I understand it, one half of the world trade in dollars is still on the English unit system. Granted, a tremendous amount of that trade is with the United States.
This brings me to another point. Previous speakers have mentioned the cost of conversion and the fact that a cost benefit for Canada has not been done. We do know that this will cost the Canadian taxpayer a great sum.
I understand the United States National Bureau of Standards did a cost benefit analysis. The net cost will be $45 million. That is a lot of money. There has been criticism of that figure. Even if they cut $10 million off the figure, it would still be a lot of money.
The case has not been proved in Canada as to the exact dollar benefits we will get. It has been pointed out that Canadian manufacturing firms which are now on the English unit have an advantage over our competitors in those countries on the metric system. When we eventually convert to the metric system Canadian manufacturers will lose that advantage. That is another point we must consider.
Metric conversion is not a substitute for Canadian ownership which is necessary to export our manufactured goods. I know there is a lot to be said for an against conversion to the metric system, and I know we have to face up to this.
I understand the American Metric Association will be meeting at nine o'clock tomorrow in Washington to try to come to grips with this. The consumer goods industries in the United States will not move until there is legislation. We should be looking to the United States to see what legislation is put forward. There must be a benefit to the Canadian consumer, and this must be demonstrated in dollar terms.
I hope, as previous speakers have suggested, that the government will give consideration to introducing more than just a resolution. As was mentioned earlier, a bill on the metric system should be introduced so that this whole matter can be discussed both in committee and in the House. When this is done we can then move forward.


Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take this opportunity to criticize the government for proceeding on this matter by way of resolution. This has been done by at least the two previous speakers, including a former cabinet minister, the hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray). It seems that whenever the government gets into a potentially difficult political situation, it tends to proceed by way of resolution to get out of its political problems.
We are supposed to be approving the activities of the Metric Commission which was approved by order-in-council. Except for some remarks that were made in 1970 when a white paper proposing something along this line was tabled, this House of Commons has not had anything to say about the establishment of that commission. I suggest that what has grown out of that bears no resemblance to what one could reasonably have expected to be the policy

of the government at that time. The order-in-council set up the Metric Commission to advise the government on how to proceed with the metrication of weights and measures in this country. I do not think that order-in-council would necessarily have led anyone to believe that legislation to protect the people of this country in the process of establishing metrication would never be produced.
We have before us a very brief resolution. It is to the effect that we approve the government's program of guideline dates for metric conversion. If this resolution is approved, and if the other place goes along with it, I can well imagine this government saying that this parliament generally approves of everything it has done and will do over the next four, five or six years in the implementation of metrication in this country, without any further reference to this House or the other place.
It seems this government is acting as the lackey of multinational corporations. I am surprised my friends to the left did not notice that fact because they generally go after the government whenever it does anything that might be favourable to the multinational corporations. We seem to be proceeding under assumption that what is good for General Motors is good for Canada. Those pushing hardest for this program are the members of the Canadian Manufacturers Association, which is bankrolled largely by General Motors and other manufacturing companies. I do not necessarily follow that philosophy. I generally agree with the policy of the Canadian Manufacturers Association, but not with regard to what they are proposing in the field of metrication.
We must remember that we are a part of a very large market, the North America continent. I believe it is of utmost importance to note what is happening in the United States. Attempts have been made in that country to pass legislation which would protect various elements of its economy. For one reason or another, they have not met with success. However, they are at least attempting to have legislation. Last year a bill which would have brought the process along faster was defeated in congress.
It is interesting to note that Mr. Gossage, the chairman of the Metric Commission, is not here today. It may be of interest to know where he is. I believe he is in Washington. I do not know whether he is getting orders or giving them. It appears that this government's action and proposals will be used as a lever to advance metrication in the United States because of our close ties, particularly in the automobile manufacturing industry.
I really do not feel amenable to being used as a tool to assist a process which is happening in the United States. In any event, even though that bill was defeated in the U.S. Congress, another effort is presently being made under the auspices of Senator Pell of Rhode Island. It does not seem to be making fast headway, but at least this legislation provides for reports to be made on the general progress which is going on in the area of conversion.
My hon. friend from Halton-Wentworth said the Commission has spent some $7 million. To be fair, I suppose it has not spent all that money yet, but it has probably spent in excess of $4 million. I should like to see some accounting of the manner in which these funds have been spent.

So far what we have seen looks like an ineffective promotion campaign. Canadians have certainly not been told what the effect of the program is going to be. The government is remiss in failing to ensure that the Commission should report to the House of Commons on its activities. It seems inconceivable that so large a sum could be spent when the only public result is the announcement that temperatures will be given in Celsius instead of fahrenheit in two weeks time. I have certainly heard no explanation as to the way in which the money has been spent.
Another feature of Senator Pell's bill is that provision is made for a regular report on the results and benefits of metrication. The government has left a gaping hole in this area. We have been given no estimate of what the cost of metrication will be to the country. Here we are, in a period of double digit inflation, and nobody appears to give a damn about what the cost will be. I would say this applies to practically everybody in the House of Commons because there seems to be no dedicated will to prevent the government from proceeding in this way. I hope there will be some opposition from this side.
The minister says he will be giving assistance to small businessmen who need it, though he did not spell out the details. I am sure that had we gone ahead with the government's original proposal no such consideration would have been shown. I should like to see more active opposition to this system of government by regulation. I think the opposition has been remiss in this respect. I hope it will change its view and seek to convince the government of the wisdom of trying to govern the country by means of laws, not regulations. It is true the minister has given us certain assurances, but his words are not worth a tinker's damn when it comes to protecting the people when the account is finally presented in respect to this process.
The United States bill also proposes that the commission envisaged in that country should have power to recommend additional legislation which may be required from time to time to solve the problems arising over the imposition of metrication. This is not a simple procedure, Madam Speaker. After all this deals with concepts. We all know that in a country such as ours, where there are two official languages, many difficulties arise because words which express a certain notion in one language do not, on translation, express the same notion in the other. When one is dealing in concepts it takes a special understanding if one is to get the idea across. When one is dealing in weights and measures, one is dealing in concepts. I have been listening to these Celsius temperatures on the radio for some months now-maybe I am a slow learner-I am learning French and possibly I am slow at that-but I am having the same difficulty in getting a true idea of what Celsius figures really mean.
Yesterday morning I looked at the temperature on the cablevision station to find out how cold it was. I saw the figures Ol but I did not notice the "c" for Celsius. I concluded it was going to be cool outside so I did not bother to put on my rubbers. On my way to church I met with a bunch of slush because it was above freezing point. This is the sort of thing that can happen.
In any event, there ought to have been an analysis of the economic impact of this proposal upon the country. Why give a blank cheque to the type of government we have
Metric Conversion
over there? We do not know what the cost will be. It has been estimated that the cost to the United States will be between $40 and $45 billion before the process is completed there. If the normal relationship applies, and our costs are 10 per cent of theirs, Canada will be faced with a bill of between $4 billion and $4.5 billion.
We heard a lot of talk about an Arctic pipeline to bring gas from the north. This is regarded as a tremendous undertaking. The Berger Commission will be sitting in Yellowknife for God knows how long, hearing representations of one kind or another. The National Energy Board or it agents, or those interested in the undertaking will spend millions of dollars before a decision is made about what will happen up there. That pipeline, I remind hon. members, is estimated to cost around $5 billion if the Maple Leaf route is followed. But a decision to proceed is subject to all sorts of complex procedures.
Here we are dealing with a proposal which could exert an untold economic impact on the country, and the minister comes along asking parliament in effect to give him a blank cheque. "Just approve what we are doing," he says. I cannot understand a government wishing to proceed in this way, and I cannot understand an opposition allowing a government to get off so easily.
As I said, there is a bill being presented in the U.S. Congress having to do with this subject. There is also supposed to be an administration bill presented by the government of the United States. So evidently the U.S. government feels it should proceed by way of legislation. Yet no such bill has been introduced in Canada. Why are we in such a rush to get ahead of the Americans in this regard if we are not acting as a tool for someone else to push the Americans along? Again, I would ask, what is Mr. Gossage doing in Washington tonight and tomorrow? I would also question what is being done with all the money that this commission has spent and is proposing to spend during the next year, totalling some $7 million, other than promoting the interests of large, multinational, manufacturing corporations.
The hon. member for Halton-Wentworth (Mr. Kem-pling) said that no minister of the Crown had said anything about this matter, but again I would have to correct him to some extent. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), who was here earlier this afternoon when the hon. member said that, did make a statement about metrication, and he said it was going to cost agriculture a lot of money. So there is evidence from that side. I wish the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) would pay a little more attention to the Minister of Agriculture when he makes representations about this matter, but apparently the Minister of Agriculture is being ignored by the rest of the cabinet.
The former minister, the hon. member for Windsor West, made reference to rip-offs and the fact that it would be easy for unscrupulous merchants to profiteer from metrication at the expense of the uninformed when the guidelines become effective. I think we must look at the experience of the United Kingdom in this regard, because in fact that is what happened there. Why is the government sponsoring a program that can make this possible,
28996 -6OV2

Metric Conversion
and why has it made no effort at all to examine the experience of other countries and find out what happened there? We need some protection in this country against unscrupulous people who have shown the capacity to use metrication to bilk the public.
The government should bring in a bill, which would then make the subject of metrication a wide open debate in parliament. It would attract publicity and would focus the attention of the public on the issue. I admit that metrication has got to come; we cannot just remain an island by ourselves. I think it is a good thing, and all educators agree that it will be easier to learn mathematics and the sciences through the use of the decimal system. I am an exponent of the adoption of this system, but I am certainly not an exponent of having it adopted at any price; as I say, the people of this country deserve some protection in this regard.
What is required is proper debate of the question. I suppose the minister is surprised that we are still talking about this subject, that we have spent one whole day discussing a program that could cost $4.5 billion before it is completed. This seems to me to be a funny attitude to take. Even though the minister might feel that we are wasting time, I think he should take a proper approach and welcome a full debate of the issue in the House of Commons. This would serve as an educational tool, because there is going to be a great deal of resistance to metrication by people across the country.
I suppose I should not be advising the minister on how to look at this politically, but I can see not too far down the road another election in about 1978, which will be the crunch year for implementing the guidelines on metrication. It is then that people will observe that something is happening, and they are not going to like it. Naturally, no one likes change, that is human nature, so some time should be spent on education. This is one of my criticisms of this ineffective commission that was appointed two or three years ago-it has not done any sort of job of educating. It has conducted a glossy type of promotional campaign but very little real education has been involved. This is why I should have thought that the minister would welcome the opportunity for a wide ranging debate to educate the people of this country.
This brings to my mind another factor that is generally overlooked by the members sitting opposite. They seem to think that this country revolves absolutely around the cities of Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal, that there is nothing further east or further west of the golden triangle. To them, one day's debate in the House of Commons is a pretty big thing, and they have no conception of the fact that it takes time to get a message across to the people of Canada. I am just amazed that they adopt this attitude in regard to what essentially is a very fundamental and important matter to the economy of this country.
Secondly, a bill would provide the opportunity to examine the process of metric conversion in the House, and also perhaps in a committee of the other place. This would mean that witnesses could be questioned and might be able to offer something constructive to the process. Instead, we have appointed this very small commission which I guess has had a lot of volunteer help in its sector committees. Generally speaking it has not taken the

public into its confidence at all, but has just concentrated upon interested people in various trades and fields of manufacturing endeavour.
Thirdly, if instead of proceeding by resolution we took the legislative route to which we are accustomed here, it would provide a forum for interested parties with legitimate complaints, parties that I feel under our system should be given the opportunity to be heard.
Fourthly, as I have already said, this resolution does not bind the government in any way, shape or form. The minuscule assurances that the minister offered in his remarks this afternoon bind no one in the future. In addition, there is no way in which this resolution can be amended in any meaningful form. We are presented with a resolution which we can either vote for or vote against. I spent some time this afternoon discussing with others the possibility of framing an amendment that would attempt to focus on the need for legislation, but I found that there is practically no amendment that is in order that could be proposed. In other words, we are stuck with a proposal of the government, and with no room for amendment.
If the government had put a bill before the House there would be all sorts of opportunities to change and improve it. I have heard it said by many Liberals that this is one of the reasons why they are over there and we are where we are. They say we always take so much time examining the shortcomings of government legislation and proposing very constructive amendments to it that, by the time the legislation gets through, it is in such good shape that the Liberals get the credit for it, and so they stay where they are. They think we would be much better off if we did not criticize so much but took the legislation as initially offered. The fact is that for the proper orderliness of the House, and to get the best out of the House of Commons, proposals should be put before us which can be improved, and improvements can only be made by amendment. The silly resolution before us is just a blank cheque that is not subject to amendment.
As I said earlier, Madam Speaker, it is very important that we stay reasonably close to what is happening in the United States in regard to metrication. After all, almost 70 per cent of our trade is with the United States which, at least at the official level, is lagging behind this country in the introduction of metrication.
As far as the other 30 per cent of our exports are concerned, as said earlier by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie), only 8 per cent are subject to this business of metrication. So instead of making it easier for a large portion of our exports to enter into foreign markets what is going to happen is that we will wipe out this non-tariff barrier we now enjoy, and make it much easier for foreign countries which have had metrication for a long time and are advanced in that area to compete with our own industries.
This is why I believe General Motors and the large multi-national manufacturing companies want metrication imposed here as soon as possible, so they can then go abroad and obtain their components at much more competitive prices than they can here in Canada. All we would be doing by metrication without proper ground rules


would be subjecting our small manufacturers to much tougher competition from abroad. There should be legislation to protect our small business firms.
Foreign owned companies can increase their markets at the expense of Canadian owned small businesses through the metrication process. For example, Canada already imports more than half its machinery and equipment. We do not want metrication just to create a larger market for machinery imports from other parts of the world such as Sweden and the European Common Market. Conversion could increase the cost of production and supply in Canada, placing Canadian produced products at an even greater disadvantage on the Canadian market.
One objective of legislation would be to get Canadian owned small businesses through the metric process without financial hardship, so that Canadians will not only import less machinery and products but in fact will be increasingly world competitive and export oriented.
During the process of metrication there will be a period of overlap during which small manufacturing businesses will have to stock two inventories, one in metric measurement and one in the present measurement. That additional inventory will not be bringing in additional business. This will involve a non-productive expense, and bankers are not generally agreeable to lending money on things that are not turned over quickly. Whatever money is loaned will carry an interest rate that can only increase the cost of doing business.
It should be set out clearly what responsibility the government is willing to accept. The minister suggested that the Industrial Development Bank would help people get over this process. This again involves loans, and someone will have to bear the expense involved. There should be a system of grants to assist businesses in this conversion process.
There are innumerable other small headaches that will occur as a result of conversion. What will happen to existing equipment? How long are inventories for repairs going to be maintained, and who is going to pay the cost? Who is to guarantee that materials will even be available? Speaking as a lawyer who has been engaged in a fair amount of land conveyancing, it strikes me as being a big job to convert all our legal descriptions in the various land titles and registry offices into whatever acres are to become under metrication. It is probably fairly simple to convert a quarter section or a section of land, but what about the small parcels? I can think of untold things that will cause inconvenience and expense, and we do not know whether these things have been considered by the government.
I cannot state strongly enough that the government is proceeding in the wrong way with this conversion. This should not be done by resolution, which is just a blank cheque, but rather by legislation so we can see the actual results for the people we represent. I cannot support the government in its aim to have metrication take place by executive action without legislation. I would ask members of the House to slow the government down in its apparent haste to achieve its present objective.


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Madam Speaker, a great deal of interesting and important information
Metric Conversion
has been placed before the House in the course of this debate. I do not propose that I am of a calibre to enlarge on the scientific era in which we exist, or the scientific evidence which has been placed before us, both for and against the metric system, by those who would discuss it. But there are a few things I do know about it, and I am acquainted with a few of its hardships.
There are three men I should like to see in this House at this moment as I think two of them would understand what I want to say, and the third might then understand better. They are the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald), who was a farmer, and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), who I think has very little knowledge or understanding of the hardships that uncontrolled metrication will bring about at the farming level.
There are certain areas where one can define with great accuracy the cost of conversion of a particular plant in order to make a new product in metric dimensions. That expense can be calculated. However, for the individual who uses a piece of machinery for decades-who has given that man consideration? There is a man who sits in this House who discussed with me the use of a tractor which is now some 30 years old. I would ask where that man is going to obtain parts for that tractor, made with English measurements some 30 years before metrication? What guarantee have we that these things will be available?
For years to come it will be absolutely essential that any farmer must have in his possession two sets of tools, and two sets of all the nuts and bolts he might ever require. He will have to carry them around in the field with him every day, because if he makes any effort to use metric tools on the nuts and bolts made by English measurement he will spoil both the nuts and bolts and the tools. There is too much play, and therefore they destroy one another.
Now if we go to the fishing industry, the lumber industry or the sawmill industry we find ourselves in virtually the same situation. It will mean that if they cannot get bolts for their equipment they will have to buy new equipment or take the old equipment to the machine shop and have it either filled in, bored out, or re-threaded to take the new bolts, or it may have to be drilled out in order that the bolts will fit. In machinery there is no tolerance for a misfit. There is no way one can say that a bolt can be within a millimetre of the required measurement because it will leave play in the machinery which will wear and destroy the whole structure of the machine.
The Prime Minister should remember that this is not simply a matter of changing the weigh structure of a scale. It is not simply a matter of changing die castings in a single factory. This can be done at a minimum of cost only if there is legislation to protect those against whom the long-range effects will cost hundreds of millions of dollars in this country. The amount has never yet been calculated by the three wise men from the east who act as the committee for the guidance of the metric system conversion under this government as it is being introduced in this country.
I plead wivh the government to have mercy on those who cannot convert today or tomorrow. I plead that there

Metric Conversion
be economic mercy in respect of these people because they need it. I plead that the fact be considered that it is not at all impossible in a seeding operation that there might be two machines in tandem, one made by the metric system and the other made by the English system, towed by a tractor made by the metric system. One definitely would need two sets of tools.
One farmer who is extremely well equipped with tools estimated that the minimum expense in his operation alone for the purchase of two sets of tools which he will need in the next five years will be not less than $1,500. There is a multitude of farmers in this country who will each spend $1,500 or more to re-equip their machine shops and tool cases. This expense has never been mentioned. There is a possibility of a reasonable evolution, but unless we co-ordinate this step by step, and move by move with the greatest trading partner we have, the United States, we will cost ourselves a great deal more money than has been mentioned by any speaker in this House today, or in any forecast by any government.
The cabinet and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) should not think just of shifting the beam of the scale. That is a small and final job. They should think of the guy who will live with change and inconvenience for decades. They should consider that he will have some equipment which is highly utilitarian around him which he cannot afford to replace for decades to come. I say: give us legislation and a plan; do not ask us to sign a blank cheque. I appeal to the government for once to please move on behalf of the little guy, not the big guy, the little guy in the woods and in the shop.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Madam Speaker, this evening we have heard a number of my colleagues discuss this proposal of the government. Not one objected to the metric system as such, or expressed doubt that we should have the metric system here in Canada. They have quarrelled, however, with the method by which we are going about this from the government's point of view. They do not criticize the work of the Metric Commission which is going on at the present time.
I must say I agree with my colleagues, the hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher), the hon. member for Carle-ton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain) and the hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray), and many others who have spoken today, when they say that conversion to the metric system has such far-sweeping consequences that it must be done by legislation. There are many people who will have to be educated in respect of the practicality of the idea. Since man inherently hates change there will be resistance to change. We can imagine what will happen after April 1 when people will hear what the temperature is on their radios and TV sets only in metric or Celsius degrees.
Let me say in all fairness that there are ways of doing these things. I have just returned from Australia where they have chosen the castor oil method, as I would call it. There was a straight implementation; bang, there it was. They have had it for a little over a year. I did not hear one complaint about it. Instead of having a five furlong horse race they have a race of 12 metres. I am sure more people understand what 12 metres are than what five furlongs are, because outside of the racing fraternity you could ask
[Mr. McCain.)
anyone what a furlong is and he would ask, "What is that?" So, there we are. I do not think there will be any difficulty about this in due course.
However, in addition to what my colleagues have said about the necessity of legislation-and I will insist upon that and before I close my remarks 1 will introduce an amendment to that effect-we approve the guideline dates but subject to the introduction of legislation to govern the conversion to the metric system. There is no way in which we can rely upon statements of ministers in the House. Are decisions to be based upon some supplementary estimates somewhere? What integrity is there in that? Madam Speaker, if you want a reference to statements by ministers and the ability to rely upon them, I invite you to read the High Court of Justice decision in Ontario in the case of the Roman Corporation Limited and others versus Hudson-Bay Oil and Gas Company and others, including the Prime Minister and the then Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
The minister, or someone on his behalf, said that there would be some sort of small business assistance program with regard to metric conversion, and that there might be loans from IDB or some other body. That statement of the minister's is not worth a tinker's damn. I am not suggesting that that is not a bona fide statement, but there is nothing at all that commits the government to that statement, except perhaps for a political and moral commitment, but under the law it is just as if it were written in sand before a thunderstorm; it would disappear.
Certainly in the United States conversion is going forward, and I do not have quite the same fears as does my colleague, the hon. member for Palliser. I was in Washington a couple of months ago and I read in their papers that in certain schools they have already started to teach the metric system only in the pre-school grade and in the first year of school. In the other grades they teach both systems. They are phasing out the imperial unit system over a period of time. I have seen the metric system signs on their highways.
I invite government members who have not been in the House earlier this evening to read the speech of the former cabinet member, the hon. member for Windsor West, in Hansard in which he calls precisely for what we are calling, namely, legislation which will serve to assist small business concerns in making their conversion, either by loans or by grants, whatever it may be, and in defining certain guidelines of conduct. As the hon. member for Windsor West pointed out, the conversion from a quart to a litre, but at the same price, means an increase of 12 per cent to 14 per cent in actual profit.
There must be a wide ranging debate of the educational aspect, and agreement reached with the provinces with regard to the registration of land. At the moment-and I think the minister would quite candidly admit it-there is not one iota of agreement with any province with regard to land registry systems in any of the provinces and on the measurements whereby land shall be described legally.
How about that area in the west under the Torrens system, the compulsory land registration system based on the rectangular one mile by two miles, divided by road-

ways that are 66 feet apart? True enough, they happen to be 20 metres apart. Road allowances in western Canada fortunately will be 20 metres apart, but who will compel province A or B to convert to these guidelines within a timetable unless there is pre-arranged and pre-negotiated legislation? That is the point.
As a lawyer from western Canada I am appalled at the government going forward with this form of resolution and the House approving the guidelines without any legislation being put before us. How will the government bind, for instance, the government of the province of Alberta with regard to the conversion of the land registry system-by force of persuasion? Will it convert the province of Saskatchewan in the same way?
No one out there will oppose the idea of converting to the metric system. I know it is coming, and personally I welcome it. I think it is a much sounder system than the system under which we measure a length of cloth from the end of the hand of some long deceased monarch to the tip of his ear, or measure the height of a horse in hands, being the measure across a man's four knuckles. All of these things do not make sense. Of course it does not make sense to be out of step with the rest of the world. But the way the government is going about converting to the metric system could not be a more scatterbrained, ineffective or unlawful way of proceeding. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That the motion be amended by adding thereto, next after the word "conversion", the following:
"but subject to legislative enactment of such a program by parliament".
I have copies of the amendment in both English and French.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Without any prejudice to the decision, the Chair will reserve judgment on the acceptability of this amendment from a procedural point of view, and render judgment at a later time.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if the government House leader could confirm that tomorrow we will be dealing with the Petro-Canada legislation?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the government intends to proceed at the opening of government orders tomorrow with Bill C-8 dealing with Petro-Canada.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.
Adjournment Debate

Douglas Roche: Madam Speaker, on February 20 I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) if he had investigated a situation in the African country of Niger where bands of nomads are dying of starvation in a camp located ten feet away from the barbed wire compound containing a warehouse jammed with Canadian grain which is only available to local people with money to pay for it. The minister said that he had not conducted any such investigation but that he would look into this particular case and would be happy to follow it up.
I regret that it is now almost a month since the minister made that undertaking, but I will not use up seven valuable minutes raising hell over the fact that the question had not been given more prompt attention. Instead I will only indicate to you, Madam Speaker, my regret that this is but one illustration of the questions that arise concerning the entire CIDA program that need to be answered in order that the people of Canada can be reassured that their money is being well spent. I assure the minister that my information is very reliable concerning the particular incident that I cited. I would be pleased to discuss it with the minister privately if I could be of assistance, but he has not even asked.
I wish to return in a couple of moments to the question of bipartisan work in this chamber with respect to foreign aid and the development of Canada's international assistance program. The people of Canada today hear a good deal about food not getting through to the proper recipients in Bangladesh and certain African countries, and I think that we need to reassure them that proper steps are being taken to block off profiteering and black marketing which inevitably occur in recipient countries. Moreover, the Canadian people need to be reassured that food is not going to be used to prop up political regimes in recipient countries, and there have been instances where that has been the case.
That is really why the question I raised over this incident is an extremely important one. It is concerned not only with the distribution of Canada's food assistance abroad, important as that is, but it brings us to a consideration of all kinds of Canadian international assistance.
We have been hearing from the Secretary of State for External Affairs of the new phase Canada is going to enter with respect to its international assitance program. He brought in a report which he presented to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence last week in which he gave some detail about what I consider an important shift in policy by the Canadian government, in which the minister has indicated that he is moving the foreign policy of Canada into a new phase where, it is frankly stated, Canada must consider ways and means to expand our economic relations with the third world beyond aid. The new phrase we must put into the minds of the Canadian people for an understanding of this situation is "beyond aid".

Adjournment Debate
The interlocking set of global problems, the monetary instability, inflation, high food prices, and sharply increasing energy costs are at the root of the growing disparity between the majority of the world's people who are poor, and the minority who are rich.
Therefore the government has set up an interdepartmental committee headed by Mr. Robinson, who is the under Secretary of State for External Affairs, to bring together the various facets of Canada's international assistance program which include CIDA and food aid but which will go on to consider questions of trade and monetary reform as called for by the United Nations.
There will be the seventh special session of the U.N. General Assembly in September, at which I hope Canada will play a significant part. The very distinguished Canadian, Mr. Maurice Strong, who heads the United Nations environmental program, and who was a former head of CIDA, only yesterday came before the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence where he spoke movingly about his hopes for Canada's participation in the special session next September. He put in a nutshell the expectations and the goal which we as Canadians and, indeed, all the people of the developed countries should set as a minimum for the seventh special session. That goal is that there would be enough for every human being on earth in terms of food, shelter and clothing. That is a minimum need to protect human decency and dignity. With Mr. Strong, Madam Speaker, I say that anything less that that minimum goal is declaring bankruptcy in our civilization.
I have said that I believe this to be so important that we ought to go beyond politics in this House for a truly bipartisan effort to help Canada improve its over-all international development picture, which is why I have suggested that a subcommittee of the external affairs committee be set up to deal with a comprehensive policy for international development, and that perhaps it might work with the interdepartmental committee of officials who are working on this very matter. Indeed the Secretary of State for External Affairs said at the committee last week that he would not oppose the setting up of a subcommittee. When I raised a question in the House today, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said that he sincerely welcomed any input by all members of this House into the improvement of the international development program of Canada.
I say to you, Madam Speaker, that we must be concerned about the sort of incident in Niger to which I alluded. We must reassure the Canadian people that these kinds of malpractices are being corrected, in order that the Canadian people will go on supporting CIDA, and its substantial budget for this year, and consider with open minds how we can enlarge our international development program. I say sincerely-and my remark is directed ultimately to the Prime Minister, and to the hon. member who will speak on behalf of the government-that we should work together on this program for the good of Canada and for the sake of human decency in the world.


Mr. Herb Breau (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, may I reassure the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche) that I and other members on my side of the House

share his concern for developing countries of the third world. We think our efforts should include direct and multilateral aid, and that Canada has a part to play in making contributions to international and global organizations, and should, within those organizations, strive for a restructuring of trade, monetary aid, and other aspects of economics in order to provide a better break for the third world.
With respect to the question the hon. member raised tonight, I can assure him that, to the best of our knowledge, the nomads gathered in the refugee camps in Niger following the terrible drought in the past several years are not dying of hunger. They are, on the contrary, being taken care of by the Niger government, which is trying either to integrate them into a more sedentary way of life or, where possible, to enable them to resume their traditional way of life.
As for the second part of the hon. member's question, it is true that food depots are sometimes found close to certain refugee camps, for logistical reasons that are easy to understand.
Finally, the agreement between Canada and Niger is similar to bilateral agreements concerning food aid with other countries, in that the recipient country can either give or sell to local populations the products which we sent it. If the country decides to sell our food aid for reasons having to do with local market conditions or other considerations, it is authorized to do so on the condition that the revenues thus made be spent on development projects. Nothing leads us to believe that Niger is not respecting this agreement; the CIDA representative in Niamey reiterated the terms of this agreement last January to the Minister of External Affairs of Niger.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS-BILINGUAL LABELLING-REQUEST FOR CONSULTATION WITH BUSINESSMEN-GOVERNMENT ACTION
A. Daniel McKenzie: Madam Speaker, when I first raised in this House a couple of weeks ago the question of Canada's new bilingual labelling laws, the minister said he would be making some changes. Although I, personally, did not receive notification of exactly what the minister was to do, I learned of his position from a newspaper report.
An article appearing in last Saturday's Winnipeg Tribune carries the headline, "Ouellet softens stand on new labelling laws." According to the article:
A new federal law regulating the labels on all merchandise sold in Canada, has been deemed too restrictive by Andre Ouellet, Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Bill C-180, scheduled to become effective Sept. 1, 1975, requires that all products sold in Canada display the common name of the item in both English and French, and that any measurements be given in metric units.
After hearing complaints from small manufacturing firms and importers of goods made outside the country, Mr. Ouellet agreed that strict enforcement of the new law would create significant problems, resulting in undue hardship for some businesses.
I want to be on record as being concerned about this question. I hope the minister fully understands the many problems many small manufacturers across Canada will face if the program is implemented, and fully understands

just how inflationary the labelling laws will be if they are enforced.
The Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce presented a good case to the minister. The news report to which I just referred alludes to the brief presented by the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce, of which the minister is aware. May I draw attention to an item which appears in that brief. The brief says in part:
As we understand it, it is possible that the Quebec Bill 22 may be tested before the courts and this whole subject resolved, but we are concerned that if in good faith our members design packaging to comply with the federal act and Bill 22 is upheld in the courts, particularly as it pertains to packaging legislation, we could be faced with another expensive redesign. In the circumstances, because of this uncertainty, we feel it would be prudent of the federal government to delay the implementation of Bill C-180 until this whole question of provincial rights in the area of consumer packaging has been clarified. We feel it is only fair that the federal government recognize that it would be impossible for our members to face the possibility of provincial legislation requiring different packaging requirements than does the federal act.
I now wish to quote from Canada's audio and home entertainment industry publication, "The Audio Retailer," as follows:
The application of Quebec's controversial new official language act could seriously affect the supply of audio goods in this province. Unless audio hardware is excluded from the provision of the act, most suppliers will withdraw from the Quebec market, according to a telephone survey of several Canadian distributors recently conducted by The Audio Retailer.
Products sold in Quebec "must be labelled in French, except within certain limits provided by regulation," states Section 34 of Bill 22. The audio industry must persuade the government to include hardware within these limits. Otherwise, in the opinion of Eric Blais, director of the Ministry of Education's French Language Office in Montreal, the act will be read to mean that front panels and control knobs, as well as warranties and instruction books, must be predominantly in French ...
"It's hard enough to get foreign manufacturers to meet CSA specifications, let alone make special panels," said Graham Bousfield of ReVox, and Hank Westerlaken of Panasonic guessed that the cost per unit of labelling a top-end line of receivers in French could be as high as $200.
Bill 22 is the most divisive piece of legislation that has ever appeared on a federal or provincial statute book. It makes a mockery of the Official Languages Act. It will seriously harm Quebec's economy with its ridiculous bilingual regulations, and make it most difficult for other countries and other parts of Canada to export merchandise to Quebec. The labelling and other aspects make it imperative that the federal government refer the matter to the Supreme Court of Canada to challenge its legality.
I have received many letters on this subject. I would like to point out how it is affecting small businesses in Canada. One of my constituents went to an embroidery shop to get some embroidery liquid. She wrote:
Adjournment Debate
-the shop told me it is no longer available because it is not worthwhile for the American producer to go into bilingual labels for his Canadian trade. The shopkeeper was so irate he took me on a tour of his shop pointing out all sorts of other items no longer available for the same reason.
I received a copy of a letter from a New York manufacturer to a Winnipeg importer. It states:
We would love to continue selling Canada, but there is no way possible that we could unless your government relaxes their regulations as our government has. We do comply with all government regulations in the United States. We therefore regret-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I should like to remind the hon. member that the act passed by the Canadian government on packaging and labelling was first discussed in 1970. When it was passed by Parliament in 1971, it was supported by all parties in the House, including that of the hon. member. In other words, it was passed unanimously by the House of Commons.
To mix Bill 22 with that federal act is a great detour taken by the hon. member. I failed to see why the hon. member first wanted to protect the Quebec economy, finally I thought I saw in his remarks that he is against Bill 22. Let us not shuffle the cards: there is no connection between Bill 22 and that act which, in fact, gave ample notice to the parties concerned. The companies which produce goods other than food stuffs have had 18 months to take what steps are required to meet the requirements of the law. The food processing companies have until March 1976 to comply with the legislation, so they will have had a 24-month notice. I think that it is advisable to remind to the hon. member that the legislation will not apply in certain cases where a local manufacturer in a predominantly unilingual area makes a product exclusively used in that area.
I have recognized that some difficulties were encountered in the application of the legislation for imported products and I have explained at length in a press release issued on March 13 last-which can be appended to Hansard if hon. members want-the amendments which we are ready to introduce to facilitate the application of the legislation for some companies. More particularly, if the importers of those products are ready to relabel them according to the legislation before selling or despatching them to distributors or retailers, they would be allowed to do so when the products have reached Canada. It will thus be easier to comply with the requirements of the law. This is what I wanted to say, Madam Speaker. If I could obtain the unanimous consent of the House, those few paragraphs could be added to my statement.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: It does not seem possible at this time of the day.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.20 p.m.


APPENDIX
[Stage Direction]
Program of Guideline dates for metric conversion
The Metric Commission has consulted with representative organizations in all sectors of the Canadian economy in respect to the manner in which conversion to the International System of metric units should proceed and as a result proposes the following four phase program and guideline dates for metric conversion:
An investigation phase, which should reach a peak during 1974, to determine what needs to be done in respect to metric conversion;
A planning phase, which will extend during 1974 and 1975, to identify the sequence in which actions will be performed;
A scheduling phase, during which the timing of these actions will be determined and coordinated and which is to be completed in 1976;
An implementation phase, to commence in some volume in 1975, reach a peak of activity in the period 1977-78 and be substantially completed by 1980 when metric measures will be used by Canadians for all normal commercial and legal purposes.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, March 18, 1975