1977-03-25

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43 for which I ask the unanimous consent of the House. My motion is in connection with a serious situation at St. John's and Mount Pearl post offices in Newfoundland where members of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers went on strike last Monday afternoon at 3.20 p.m. and are continuing their strike despite the fact that a collective agreement is in force and the law prohibits such a strike during the term of an agreement. There are now some 12,000 unemployment insurance cheques totalling $2 million caught in the mail. Old age pensions, veterans cheques and social assistance cheques are scheduled to be delivered Monday but will be delayed if this strike continues. 1 therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Mus-koka (Mr. Darling):
That this House urge the Postmaster General to use every possible means to bring this illegal work stoppage to a halt immediately by way of obtaining a court injunction or otherwise and urge the postal clerks involved to return to work so that the severe hardship caused members of the general public, including those dependent upon unemployment insurance cheques, old age security, veterans cheques and other social assistance cheques through the mails, will cease.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 43 the presentation for debate of such a motion can only be done with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


MANPOWER
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity affecting instructors and students in adult vocational training programs in Nova
Scotia. In view of the recently announced cutbacks in instructors and training by the Nova Scotia Labour Minister which, because of the severe unemployment program, particularly on Cape Breton Island, will create even greater hardship, and in light of the conflicting and contradictory statements on the amounts allocated for training by provincial officials, federal manpower officials and, indeed, by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) here in this Chamber, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield):
That more money be allocated for training in the province of Nova Scotia, or alternatively, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration investigate the situation and clarify the matter to determine who is passing the buck.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for debate pursuant to Standing Order 43 can be done only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


AIRPORTS
[Stage Direction]
GASPfi AND ILES-DE-LA-MADELEINE-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that there are no all weather air navigation facilities at the Gaspe and Magdalen Islands airports, that airplanes are the only means of travelling in and out of the Magdalen Islands during the winter months, and that it is high time the Department of Transport's report following the studies initiated in 1968 bring about concrete results, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte):
That the House urge the Department of Transport to act with all expediency and provide for fiscal year 1977-78 the necessary credits for carrying out long overdue improvements at the Gaspe and Magdalen Islands, thereby providing the public with more adequate and safer air services.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the hon. member's motion. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
80010-671/2
Tribute to Mr. Diefenbaker ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS

March 25, 1977


REQUEST FOR AGREEMENT WITH PROVINCES ON POLLUTION STANDARDS-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Ren6 Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, before I put my motion, it seems to me I did not hear anyone say "No" following the motion presented by my colleague from Rimouski.
Pursuant to Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the importance of sound action against pollution and also the necessity of adequately protecting our environment, and since numerous companies do not look overly preoccupied by these problems, I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard):
That the government get together with the provinces in establishing minimum standards to protect the environment and fight pollution.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, such a motion can only be presented with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TRIBUTE TO MEMBER FOR PRINCE ALBERT ON ANNIVERSARY OF THIRTY-SEVENTH YEAR OF ELECTION TO PARLIAMENT
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before proceeding with the oral question period I know all hon. members would want to join with me in paying tribute to a significant event, it being the anniversary today of the 37th year of the election to parliament of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I deeply thank you for those words and my colleagues for the reception. To me it is something beyond belief that anyone should, in this day and generation, have been in this chamber for that length of time. I should add that having regard to the newly-elected prime minister of India, Mr. Desai, who is 81, gives hope for the future.
If I may be permitted I should like to express my deep appreciation to you, Sir, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) and leaders of the other parties and members in all parts of the House for the sympathy extended at the passing of my beloved Olive. Those messages have given me a greater knowledge and greater appreciation of this House. I hope I have not transgressed the

rules, but must say how deeply touching it was to have those messages. They meant so much to me.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Acting Prime Minister has to do with the shocking underutilization of this country's resources as a result of unemployment. I ask whether the statement of the Prime Minister in Toronto, yesterday, that university graduates who feel their opportunities in this country are not outstanding should leave Canada is government policy?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I-


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: I was shocked too, Allan.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I was not shocked at all-1 am replying to the comment made by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton. I am sure the hon. member for Don Valley understands the context in which the statement was made by the Prime Minister. It was made before a group of students, in an atmosphere of cordial provocation.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, I take it from the Acting Prime Minister's answer that it is government policy to have those students leave the country if they do not feel there is any future for them in this country.
My supplementary question is specific. Does the minister feel that the forthcoming budget and forthcoming policies which may be brought down with respect to the elimination of unemployment are such that there is really not much hope that in the foreseeable future there will be sufficient growth in the Canadian economy to absorb the current graduates of Canadian universities?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, that is not the view of the government at all. I am sure, when the budget address is given by the Minister of Finance next Thursday, the hon. member will realize that very serious new attempts will have been made-


An hon. Member:: New?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -that very serious further and new attempts have been made to accelerate the growth of the economy and to help to reduce unemployment levels, in the context of the government's striving to restrain the growth of inflation.
March 25, 1977


James McPhail Gillies: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is one reason for the federal government's allocating smaller resources for the support of higher education, or post-secondary education, the government's belief that it is impossible for the economy or the labour force to absorb as high a proportion of people with higher education as we are producing at present?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not the view of the government. It is obvious, as a result of recent arrangements, that the government is providing more resources than ever to the field of post-secondary education. 1 am sure the hon. member would not want to attribute more to the comments of the Prime Minister than are justified, because in that context I am sure what the Prime Minister had in mind was a challenge to the students, to go out and contribute to the Canadian economy. Probably, the most stark way to present the challenge was to suggest that the alternative might be to leave the country. I do not think any would regard that as a viable alternative at the present time.


GOVERNMENT ADVICE TO UNEMPLOYED TO LEAVE COUNTRY TO FIND EMPLOYMENT
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the Prime Minister's statement that if university students are dissatisfied with job opportunities in Canada they should go to another country, and that if it is just a job they want the Prime Minister's heart would not bleed for them-that is if he has a heart-can the minister advise whether it is the policy of the government now, to advise the 932,000 unemployed Canadians that if they do not like it here without jobs they should also find another country where they may obtain jobs. To what country would the Acting Prime Minister advise them to go, in their search for work?


Walter David Baker: To a country which will give them refugee status.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member is seriously interested in unemployment and does not regard that as a serious question. It was really an argument raised, as I said, upon an occasion of cordial provocation in Toronto.


POSSIBILITY OF DENYING UNIVERSITY GRADUATES ENTRY TO CANADA
John Carnell Crosbie: In view of the attitude of the Prime Minister toward unemployed university graduates and his advice to them about where they can go to look for work, can the Acting Prime Minister advise the House whether the Department of Manpower and Immigration are being issued instructions by the government to change immigration levels and to advise educated university graduates from abroad they are no longer admissible into Canada if our graduates cannot find jobs. Obviously, the government does
Oral Questions
not want university graduates coming to Canada. Has any instruction like that been issued?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No,
Mr. Speaker.


MANPOWER
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Recognizing that thinking is a decennial practice among Liberals and in view of the Prime Minister's thinking out loud yesterday when he said to the students of the University of Toronto that if they are dissatisfied with job opportunities in Canada, they should go to another country, does the minister agree with the thinking of the Prime Minister or is this a new manpower policy being undertaken by the government, that of exporting unemployed Canadian youth?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, it is a sad commentary when the opposition picks up a statement like that when the Prime Minister, in an exchange with students, offers to them the many challenges that are available throughout this country and throughout the world. The hon. member himself saw fit when he could not get a job in his country to come to this land of opportunity. Does he feel someone is doing a disservice to these students by recommending that they try something else and that if they do not like it they can come back to see what a great country this really is?


ADDITIONAL MEASURES TO PROVIDE EMPLOYMENT FOR YOUNG CANADIANS
John R. Rodriguez: In relation to the minister's last comment, I was a victim of imperialism where I was. The Prime Minister must have been potty when he said yesterday in Toronto "We are not going to put millions into subsidization of university graduates because they have a bleak view of their future." It is a well known fact that many young people stay in the school system because jobs are unavailable or because they must build up credentials which are used to ration the limited number of jobs. Is the minister going to put millions into creating opportunities for employment for Canadian youth apart from Young Canada Works?


An hon. Member:: You even made the baby cry.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Out of the mouths of babes.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, we are in fact putting pots of money into youth training projects. We are also participating in the financing of

March 25, 1977
Oral Questions
post-secondary education. I would think it an insult to the students of this country to suggest that they want to be constantly spoonfed. They want to be helped, but they do not want to be spoonfed as the hon. member is suggesting.


John R. Rodriguez: In response to the comment before the minister started to speak, out of the mouths of babes and infants will come words of wisdom. In view of a recent report by the Canadian Council on Social Development that Canada will be faced with a politically and economically explosive .situation if nothing is done to ease the severe unemployment among young people, and in view of the report by Statistics Canada that the unemployment rate among women age 15 to 25 is 14.2 per cent and among men age 15 to 25 it is 14.5 per cent, will the minister tell the House what new programs other than Canada Works he is prepared to initiate immediately to deal with this very serious problem?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, any time we have an ongoing program and it is working, we always find a question coming from the hon. member indicating "in view of the", "notwithstanding this" and so on, what additional things are being done? We have come up with all these new and imaginative projects and a lot of them are in fact working. The hon. member seems to think that by shouting he wins his argument, but he really loses it. He feels he has to keep jumping up and down like a yo-yo over there. The government does have an obligation to do what it can within the limits of the funds that are available to create and set modes and attitudes about the hiring of the young and of the women in this country but by and large, the major number of jobs in the country has to be created by private enterprise, and they are the people who should be encouraged.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications.
Can the minister tell us what impelled her to introduce her bill on communications before the conference with her provincial counterpart?


Hon. Jeanne Sauv6 (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, several reasons compelled me to do so, one of which is the need to consolidate and update the statutory powers of the government in the field of communications. One of the reasons for introducing it before the conference was that I wanted to give the provincial ministers who will attend that conference a chance to discuss the text of the bill, the main themes of which they already know.
[Mr. Cullen.)


ATTITUDE OF MINISTER TOWARDS ABSENCE OF QUEBEC MINISTER FROM CONFERENCE
René Matte: 
PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the President of the Treasury Board-the Minister of Transport might be interested in it as well, but the President of the Treasury Board has a large responsibility for the collective bargaining process in the public service. Can the minister tell us whether any representations have been made to him with respect to an application by a part of a union seeking separate accreditation to represent one of the public service unions and what attitude the government would take toward such an application?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: I believe that question would be more properly addressed to the Minister of Transport: I am aware of what the general situation is, but I think my colleague could be more specific.


Donald W. Munro: Unless the Minister of Transport is prepared to answer, my supplementary question is this: In view of the threat that such an application presents to nationwide unions in general in the public or the private sector, does the Department of Transport intend to intervene one way or another, and, if so, in what way?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: The matter is, of course, before the board and it would be better if comments were made there. It is not our intention to take a positive position on the specific issue. We have taken positions in regard to a variety of the circumstances which lie behind the
March 25, 1977

difficulties experienced by this union and we may make some comments about that aspect, but basically we shall be awaiting a decision of the board.


Donald W. Munro: In view of the experiment the department is conducting in this area and the undertaking he has given to the present accredited bargaining agent for this group of public servants, I should like to ask the hon. gentleman this question: Does the minister feel under no obligation whatever to these employees or to the Canadian public respecting this matter in order to preserve the integrity of a very important sector of the public service?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I do not relate at all the one issue to the other. I do not see any conflict in our present position on that agreement or on other promises or undertakings.


POSSIBILITY OF MANY APPLICATIONS TO SPLIT UNIONS
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question to the President of the Treasury Board arising out of the series of questions put by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich relating to air traffic control matters. There are other employee agents and unions bargaining in the public service of Canada. Are there other questions in other unions to which the President of the Treasury Board must address himself from time to time having to do with requesting a split in jurisdiction of such unions, so that the government might find itself dealing with perhaps two separate and distinct organizations involving the same governmental discipline, such as the post office, on the one hand, or other public service unions?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I have some difficulty answering that question. If the hon. member would give specific examples of such a trend then I think I could deal with it in that way. 1 cannot comment from knowledge of any general or specific trend in that direction.


Walter David Baker: That answers the question.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Gilies Marceau (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Solicitor General.
I would like to ask him whether the government will take into account the representations received from hunting and fishing clubs as well as shooting clubs when drafting the future legislation on the control of firearms?
Oral Questions


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the legislation on the control of firearms comes under my colleague the Minister of Justice, but in his absence, since I have been closely involved in any legislative action in that respect, I would like to assure the hon. member that in our proceedings we have carefully examined every report which we received and all representations made by hunting and fishing clubs as well as shooting clubs. We hope to introduce a bill which will meet the basic objectives of the government while respecting the authentic rights of people who are members of hunting, fishing and shooting clubs.


TRANSPORT
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport and has to do with the continuing concern about the supply of insulated boxcars for the eastern potato growers. In light of the upcoming meeting between himself and the minister from Prince Edward Island, has the minister seen the report prepared by the P.E.l. potato marketing board which was presented to the provincial government, which indicates the predicted crisis in the availability of rail cars if immediate action is not taken on the provision of rolling stock within the next period? At the same time, would the minister answer whether his own studies, which he mentioned some time ago, have been completed and whether he is prepared to give some answer to the provincial minister when he meets with him shortly?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, 1 may be able to report some progress. We have been keeping in touch with the situation. My colleague the Minister of Agriculture has been paying particular attention to the question of adequate supplies, and I may be able to discuss further the question of what equipment is available and additional efforts which can be made to ensure that there will be equipment.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister indicate whether or not his own studies have been completed and whether there will be any kind of specific answer given when the provincial minister is here, inasmuch as it is reported today that there is a very serious decline in rail car manufacture in Canada generally? Apart from the order of 2,000 grain cars which the minister placed earlier, partially to ease that situation and also to provide further rolling stock for the grain producers of western Canada who have now something like 8,000 grain cars available provided by the federal government, as yet not one single car has either been built or purchased by the federal government for the potato growers of Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. Can the minister indicate whether some answer

March 25, 1977
Oral Questions
will be given the provincial minister so that we can alleviate what appears to be an upcoming crisis situation?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the hopper cars were purchased because of the very special situation obtaining in relation to grain. The railways have a frozen rate for the carriage of grain and therefore need additional cash infusions in the system. In general terms the railways are expected to supply adequate equipment, and to do so by charging appropriate rates. Steps have been taken by the railways to identify the kind of equipment which is available and that will be one of the questions which will be discussed, that is to say, the use of some existing equipment which is available but has not hitherto been used in that particular service. The problem with taking any positive position on manufacturing new equipment is that we must first determine the best manner of carrying potatoes in the future.


SUGGESTION BRITISH COLUMBIA COMPANY BE GIVEN OPPORTUNITY TO MANUFACTURE RAILWAY CARS
Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the very recent representations made by the province of new British Columbia to the Minister of Transport, is the Minister of Transport considering giving them some contracts to make this kind of car to transport produce in Canada, since they have been denied the right to have any of the contract for the hopper cars?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, obviously I am not considering simply the question of where the business should go. The point I was making to the hon. member for Egmont was that we have not reached any conclusion on what type of equipment to order. Rail West in British Columbia were given a full opportunity to bid on the order of
2,000	hopper cars, and as I told the House earlier it was only because their price was very much higher than that of other suppliers that no contract was offered to them.


PROPOSED USE OF UNITED STATES' EXPERTISE TO DECIDE TYPE OF RAILWAY CAR FOR SHIPPING PRODUCE
George H. Whittaker: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the American railways have no problem supplying cars for Canadian produce, and in view of the statement that the minister made that we do not seem to know what rolling stock to use in Canada, I would ask the Minister of Transport why he does not use the expertise already known in North America for moving this type of produce?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may not be aware of the fact that an intermodal study is being conducted into the movement of Prince Edward Island potatoes. To suggest that the railways should move from one type of equipment to another before that question is finally settled is missing the point entirely in regard to what is involved in the movement of potatoes.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the hundreds of millions of dollars worth of sales of Canadian uranium and thousands of miners' jobs which are dependent on nuclear safeguards agreements being reached with the governments of purchasing countries, can the minister say what progress has been made in the negotiations with the European Economic Community countries and with Japan concerning safeguards for uranium fuel?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the degree of progress varies from one country to another. Without going into a very lengthy explanation, I think Canada and Japan are quite close to a final agreement. In terms of the European community, the Euratom organization of the community is still talking with the Canadian negotiators. We are also holding bilateral talks with the European countries concerned, and here once again substantial progress is being made. But, of course, our policy is not to reintroduce exports until such time as our safeguards standards have been met fully.


POSSIBILITY DISCUSSIONS ON INTERNATIONAL WHEAT AGREEMENT MIGHT INCLUDE OTHER GRAINS-DATE OF COMPLETION
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. The minister has been talking a lot about a new international wheat agreement and has spoken with officials in the United States and Australia. Is the minister giving any consideration to extending these talks to include grains other than wheat and, if so, can he tell the House which grains he might consider?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, that topic may certainly include other grains. At the moment we are talking principally about wheat. We are, of course, at the preliminary stage, and we will see what the wishes of particular participants are as we proceed.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister tell us a bit about his timetable for achieving an international wheat agreement or hopefully an international grains agreement, and at the same time would he tell us whether he is willing to take the initiative in convening a meeting or conference of all grain producing and grain consuming nations of the world so as to expedite an agreement of this sort?
March 25, 1977


Otto Emil Lang: 1 have taken the initiative to bring the discussions into being and thereafter we will jointly proceed as agreed upon by those who are now participating in the talks. 1 do not have a specific timetable which I can lay out before hon. members because of the need to get agreement and concurrence on the part of the people.


POST OFFICE
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General. Does he consider it appropriate that when one goes into a post office in Halifax to buy, say, an $80 money order and then tenders a $50 Canadian bill as partial payment, acceptance of that $50 bill is refused unless the customer is prepared to sign his name and give his address? In other words, does the Post Office regard a $50 bill as legal tender or does it not?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. gentleman that it is not the practice to refuse any form of Canadian legal tender, but I will be pleased to receive particulars of this incident from the hon. member, look into it and offer him an explanation that is due.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: While the minister is looking into the question, would he inquire as to why the employee in question offered the explanation that he was instructed by his superiors to do this?


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I would like to return to an earlier line of questioning and ask the President of the Privy Council the following question. In 1972 the Prime Minister's advice to the unemployed in Quebec was that the Quebec unemployed could find new jobs in Ontario. Now, the Prime Minister has moved to the international field as an answer to the problems that face this country. If it is to be the policy initiative of the Liberal thinkers conference that we use international travel agents to solve these serious problems, perhaps the President of the Privy Council might consider adjourning this thinkers conference.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker, I intend to join the thinkers later today.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


Mr. Fairweather:: When the President of the Privy Council goes to the thinkers conference, would he remind that group that the last suggestion for solving unemployment by taking one-way tickets was Walter Gordon's who made it in Cape Breton Island, as I remember, so it should be a fruitful afternoon and evening?


AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR CONSTRUCTING STADIA FOR PROFESSIONAL SPORTS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for Fitness and Amateur Sport. Can the minister say whether some Canadian football league teams have approached her asking for funds towards upgrading or constructing sports stadia, and, if so, what was her response? Second, can she tell the House whether it is within the authority of her department to grant funds for the upgrading of stadia used by professional teams of one kind or another?


Hon. Iona Campagnolo (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is no, and the answer to the second part is also no.


John R. Rodriguez: That's a no-no.


Paul Yewchuk: Can the minister give the House the assurance that she would not grant such funds, and secondly, does she agree that professional sport is deleterious to the health of Canadians? If so, what action does she plan to take in that regard?


Iona Campagnolo: Mr. Speaker, I do not regard professional sport as being deleterious to the health of Canadians. It serves as an example to many of us sitting in the spectators position. However, I cannot say to what consideration will be given in the future following our present Loto Canada commitments. At this time I cannot say unequivocally that no consideration would be given to this. It may be, but not in the foreseeable future.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have had a question for a day or so for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and again he seems to have disappeared today. So I should like to direct my question to the President of the Treasury Board with regard to the request of the Department of Indian Affairs to the Treasury Board to further contribute to the settlement of the Turtin Penn lease in the Shannonville area near the Tyendenaga Mohawk reserve
4338

March 25, 1977
Oral Questions
which has been there for some time. Can the minister indicate when we might have a settlement of this particular request?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I will have to inquire to see where that matter stands.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and it is with respect to a letter which was addressed to all hon. members dated March 23, 1977. I would like an explanation with respect to part of the letter which reads:
... in areas of continuing high unemployment such as the Atlantic provinces, efforts have been directed to the detection of fraud, misrepresentation and unreported earnings.
I know of no case in the maritimes of any person on unemployment insurance being found in Florida.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for bringing this to my attention yesterday. I did read the letter over and I wished I had not written it because it gives an unfortunate inference. What we are endeavouring to indicate is that there are two areas of service to the community, one wanting the placing of individuals and the other a control mechanism. There was a wastage of personnel sometimes trying to find jobs where jobs do not exist. So I was indicating the two services in the department. But it was an unfortunate inference, and I apologize for it.


MANPOWER
Leonard C. Jones: I would like to ask the same minister another question. He used the phrase "continuing high unemployment". What is he going to do now to stop this continuing high unemployment?


John R. Rodriguez: Nothing.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I am dealing with that in large measure in my estimates. Unfortunately, the hon. member for Nickel Belt does not show up at meetings so that we can have an appropriate exchange there.


INCOME TAX
Mr. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue and it arises out of an article in the Toronto Star yesterday. In view of the fact that the International Fund for Animal Welfare last year was a non-profit organization and yet had a surplus of almost half a million dollars and in view of the fact that responsible persons, such as Mr. Tom Hughes, executive vice president of the Ontario Humane Society, have called for an inquiry to investigate all aspects of fund raising by the funds executive director, Brian Davies, will the minister cause such an inquiry to be initiated to see how this man obtained the money that he uses to smear the names of honest, God-fearing Newfoundlanders?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I can only provide a very partial answer to this question, considering the strict confidentiality rules which we must respect.
Any organization requesting a tax relief for charity purposes must meet such purposes. When we have grounds to suspect the contrary, from newspaper articles which describe lobbying activities considered political or otherwise, or when the annual reports we request do not satisfy us, we make an inquiry into that specific matter. In this case concerning the International Fund for Animal Welfare, we came to the conclusion that they could not get relief because there were no such charity purposes. After discussions, the organization asked to be decertified as from last December 31.
I can make no further comment. In the future, after the recent passage of Bill C-22 by Parliament, any organization enjoying a tax relief will be required to make a public report.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. As the minister is aware, there has been a serious postal strike at the St. John's post office for the past five days. Will the minister use every possible means to bring this illegal work stoppage to a halt immediately by means of obtaining a court injunction or otherwise, and will he urge the postal clerks involved to return to work so that the severe hardship caused members of the general public, including those dependent on receiving unemployment insurance cheques, old age security
[Mr. Ellis.)
March 25, 1977

and veterans cheques and other social assistance cheques through the mails, will cease?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: Mr. Speaker, with the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka and the hon. member for St. John's West, I am very much concerned about this work stoppage. I have been informed that the cheques are presently in the mail. We are using all the means available to us-although 1 must indicate they are limited under the present legislation-to get this illegal work stoppage to cease. I trust that by the weekend the matter will be resolved.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Transport. Given the fact that the CNR, a Crown corporation receiving subsidies from the federal government, is committed to a $90 million capital expenditure for a ferry service between Baie Comeau, Matane and Quebec City, a service which will require a continuing annual operating subsidy, will the minister accept the fact that this is a federal subsidy for an intra-provincial ferry service which is justification for a formula which will allow a federal sharing of the operating losses of the B.C. ferry system?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker. 1 think the hon. member has the facts wrong in relation to the financial arrangements involved. I would be glad to obtain complete details and let the hon. member have them.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: In light of the fact that the essential revenue aspects of this St. Lawrence crossing were to be put in place by the CPR at a $10 million cost and at no cost to the treasury, can the minister give the rationale behind this heavy involvement on the part of CNR, particularly in light of his concern about frugality in placing railroad hopper car orders?


Otto Emil Lang: As the facts, when the hon. member has them, will show, this is not a matter of subsidy but a commercial intervention on the part of CN.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture.
Considering that the dairy industry is essential to a good nutrition of mankind and that primary producers should have a fair return for their work and be able to live decently, is the Minister of Agriculture in a position to tell the House whether
Oral Questions
the dairy policy coming into force on April 1, 1977 will be announced in the very near future and whether milk producers should expect a better year than in 1976-77?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I said I hoped that we would be able to announce this several days or weeks before the first of April. In the middle of January the Canadian Dairy Commission made some submissions to the provincial milk marketing boards, which make up the advisory group to the Canadian Dairy Commission. They have not come to a solid, 100 per cent conclusion on all the suggestions and offers we made to them. I will be going ahead with a recommendation to my colleagues in cabinet, I hope, the first of the week. I hope we can still meet the deadline of April 1 even without the full co-operation and endorsement of the provincial milk marketing boards. I still believe we will have a very good dairy policy for the dairy year 1977-78.


INQUIRY WHETHER QUOTAS DISTRIBUTED BY MARKETING BOARDS
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
First of all, I thank the minister for his excellent answer, and 1 would like to know if he could possibly tell the House whether a specific study has been made on the quota policy throughout Canada, whether changes have been made in this area and whether the quotas will be distributed at the producer level through marketing boards, as in the past, once the future discussions on this subject are completed?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member knows that the national quota for industrial milk is decided by the Canadian Dairy Commission after consultation with provincial marketing boards and the dairy farmers of Canada. I have very little to say to individual farmers about the quotas. They are administered by milk marketing boards within the provinces.
In his earlier question the hon. member asked if the quota will be made public. It will be made public at the time of announcement, and I hope information sheets will be made available to hon. members at that time.


MEASURES TO PROTECT CANADIAN PRODUCERS AGAINST EFFECTS OF IMPORTED PRODUCTS
Mr. Robert Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture, and it relates to tariff inequities. In view of the declaration of the Canadian Horticultural Council that producers of horticultural crops in Canada continue to suffer economically because of the inflow of competing products at prices below the cost of production, and in view of similar views being expressed by the Canadian Fruit and Vegetable Processors' Association, what action will
4340

March 25, 1977
Oral Questions
the government take to assist and protect our Canadian horticultural producers and our fruit and vegetable producers?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. member that at the recent annual meeting of the Canadian Horticultural Council in Ottawa a unanimous motion of commendation of the government and of the Minister of Agriculture was moved. This was because of all the things we were doing for those producers. I am sure the hon. member knows that we have done those things for them, and I am sure he also knows that the Tariff Board report is to be tabled or made public, 1 am told, on April 1 or shortly thereafter.


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the fact that the Canadian Horticultural Council passed one resolution congratulating the government. I am also aware that there were 49 other resolutions which did not support government action.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That is one out of 50.


ALLEGED LACK OF INSTRUCTION TO GATT NEGOTIATORS ON AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
John Wise: In view of the comment of a provincial minister of agriculture that he was shocked to learn of the lack of instruction our GATT negotiators were receiving from Ottawa, and in view of the fact that one negotiator told the provincial minister, and I quote, "We are here to play the piano, but somebody has to compose the music", when does the government expect to have its music ready, and is the government at least going to change the basis of Canadian tariffs from the present fixed cost basis to a per cent ad valorem?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that practically every producer of horticultural crops I have had anything to do with has played a very pleasant tune because those producers are able to pay their bills as a result of the program we have initiated for them. I am shocked that the Ontario minister of agriculture would say that publicly because that is not what he said to me privately.


POTATOES-WAREHOUSE AND SHIPPING FACILITIES IN SAINT JOHN, N.B.-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO IMPROVE
Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Agriculture, and it relates to earlier questions asked by the hon. member for Egmont. Following the minister's inspection of the warehousing and loading facilities at the Port of Saint John last weekend, has he had an opportunity to determine how best to respond to the present inadequacies, hopefully in time for the next shipping season this coming fall?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, 1 did visit those facilities with representatives of the potato growing industry from New Brunswick and with the organization which represents all potato growers in the maritimes. We
[Mr. Wise.)
visited the wharves in the Saint John harbour area. Actually, it was a week ago this morning. We were making that visit about this time last week. I was appalled to see the facilities which were being used. They were not exaggerating about how bad they were. An inter-departmental committee will be putting together a report. The Department of Transport and the Department of Agriculture are working together on this. We hope we will have something for the next crop season which will be much more practical than what we have at the present time.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In view of the very real sympathy that the minister expressed in committee the other day for the 200 or so living veterans of World War 1 who were prisoners of war and also the interest he expressed in the Canadian veterans who were evaders or escapers in World War II, can he tell the House whether the chances are good that there will be legislation during this session to extend the prisoner of war compensation to these two groups of Canadian veterans?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: In answer to the hon. member's question, Mr. Speaker, as I informed him before, this is under study by my department but as to making any commitment for this session, I prefer not to at this time.


STUDY OF PENSIONS FOR WIDOWS OF VETERANS WHOSE DISABILITY PENSION LESS THAN FORTY-EIGHT PER CENT
Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister say whether he and his department are also giving serious study to the problem which arises from the fact that there is no pension for a veteran's widow where the veteran's disability pension was less than 48 per cent?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker, this is also under study by the department at the present time.


IMMIGRATION
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and
March 25, 1977

Irrimigration arising out of the question originally asked by the hon. member for Don Valley. First, 1 should like to ask whether his department is doing anything to prevent immigration into Canada of university students from any part of the world or in the alternative if it is not, does he agree that such a policy as was enunciated yesterday by the Prime Minister, which is not only defeatist but disgraceful, should not apply in this country at a time when we are so anxious to have the best trained technological people that can be produced in this land?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I always consider it an honour to have a question from the right hon. gentleman. This is the first one he has put to me in either portfolio, so it is great that in his 37th year here he has finally come around to me. In dealing with foreign students, we have a policy whereby they would secure their visa abroad and would be expected to take care of themselves when they get here. 1 think we have a pretty commendable record in Canada for opportunities, as some other countries have for Canadian students who are given opportunities to train abroad.
In so far as the exchange that the Prime Minister had yesterday with students, I think what he was doing was probably what many people have done to young people, in effect saying that the fact that they have a degree is not an automatic guarantee of a job. On the aspect of what the government is doing about it, he lined up the options for the students and one of them happened to grab the headlines.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question. In view of the statement of the Prime Minister, is the minister giving consideration to having a subdepartment of immigration on emigration from Canada?



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-409, respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (Real Caouette).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill to change the name of the riding of "Temiscamingue" to that of "Real Caouette" is to honour the memory of a great federalist member of this House of Commons. There are names throughout Canada honouring distinguished politicians, members of this House and of the provincial House of Quebec. In view of the high regard in which this House held the late hon. member
Combines Investigation Act
for Temiscamingue, I think that riding should be renamed in his honour.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
March 16, 1977-Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs of Bill C-42, an act to amend the Combines Investigation Act and to amend the Bank Act and other acts in relation thereto or in consequence thereof.
Allan Joseph MacEachen: That the subject matter of Bill C-42, an act to amend the Combines Investigation Act, and to amend the Bank Act and other acts in relation thereto or in consequence thereof, be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the motion put forward by the President of the Privy Council. Does the minister have leave to introduce the motion at this time?


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions with respect to the matter, and the motion is quite in order. There has been some understanding that the work of the committee that will follow from the budget will not be interfered with. I understand arrangements have been made with other members and the minister in whose name the bill stands so that this matter can go forward with consent. We agree to the motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we also agree to the proposal made by the President of the Privy Council, but there is just one point about which I should like to be sure. Maybe it is automatic, but the minister did not include in his motion any reference to the removal of item No. 42 from the order paper. I do not think we should have it in both places. I am suggesting the motion should include the discharge of the item from the order paper and the reference of the subject matter to the standing committee, or an understanding that the order will be discharged.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, it was my understanding that the table would take the necessary steps following the adoption of this motion.


Mr. Speaker:: That was also the understanding of the table officers. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

March 25, 1977
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House agreed to the putting of the motion at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might put a question to the minister responsible for this bill. In the discussions that led to this motion there was some comment to the effect that the steering committee to which the bill is being referred would draw up an invitation list for briefs. As this is an extremely important bill affecting the industrial organizations and structure of Canada, I would not want that steering committee to understand they would be too limited in invitations to the Canadian community to participate in the committee stage of the subject matter of the bill. I realize there has to be a balance, but if it became too restrictive I think we would be doing a great disservice to the Canadian industrial community.


Mr. Speaker:: The procedure is a little extraordinary, but if it is simply to allay a concern of the hon. member perhaps the minister might answer.


Mr. Abbott:: Mr. Speaker, I welcome a chance to allay that particular apprehension. In the discussions I indicated we would provide a list of persons and organizations who in the past years have expressed interest, but I think the committee would probably want to issue a more general invitation.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. MacEachen) agreed to and order discharged.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 99, 114, 738, 740, 741, 743, 746, 1,393, 1,567, 1,569, 1,653 to 1,681 inclusive, 1,793, 1,891, 1,897, 1,975 and 2,151.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Have any charges been laid against former UIC employee Mr. Gordon Gunn of Ottawa and, if so (a) what are they (b) on what dates were such charges laid (c) how many times did Mr. Gunn appear in court and what was the result in each case (d) what is the exact date that (i) UIC (ii) RCMP began investigating this matter and on what date was the investigation completed?
2.	What is a full description and detail of all infractions committed by Mr. Gunn?
3.	(a) What are the names of all others associated with him in such activities (b) have any charges been laid against any of them and, if so, what are the names and addresses of any such persons charged along with a list of charges made in each case?
4.	How much money did Mr. Gunn personally defraud or assist others in defrauding from UIC?
5.	On what date was the answer to this question prepared?


Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Department of the Solicitor General and the Unemployment Insurance Commission as follows: 1. Yes (a) One charge of fraud, Section 338(1) C.C. (b) May 14, 1976. (c) May 14, 1976, adjournment; May 21, 1976, adjournment; May 28, 1976, adjournment; June 4, 1976, adjournment; June 11, 1976, plea of not guilty; Oct. 7, 1976, Preliminary Hearing commenced,
(d)	(i) The investigation commenced on April 10, 1976 and was finalized on June 11, 1976. (ii) The R.C.M.P. began their investigation on February 19, 1976 and the substance of the specific charge was completed on May 3, 1976. Other aspects of the investigation are continuing.
2.	Answered in No. I above.
3.	(a) It would be prejudicial to the ongoing criminal investigation if this question was answered at this time, (b) No.
4.	The information alleges an amount in excess of $200.
5.	The government takes responsibility for the answers it provides to questions and for the process involved in replying to such questions. It is not appropriate therefore to provide information about internal administrative arrangements.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Does the Prime Minister use public funds for personal purposes of any kind, including holidays for himself and his family, purchasing of food, etc., considered by the Department of National Revenue as taxable benefits received from his employer and, if so, has he been required to pay income tax?
2.	If he does not pay income tax, for what reasons are such benefits not considered taxable and what is the legal authority to justify such a situation?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: 1 and 2.
Public funds are not used for personal holidays (see subsection 6 (1) of the Income Tax Act and Section 5.1 of the Official Residences Act).

March 25, 1977


Mr. Muir: Order Paper Questions
2. What action has been taken by the Cape Breton Development Corporation in co-operation with the (a) City of Sydney (b) Town of North Sydney to assist in the construction of a new water system and, if a decision has not been rendered to date, have meetings been held and, if so, what and how many and when is a final decision to be reached as to such assistance?
I. What monies have been made available to municipal units on Cape Breton Island by the Cape Breton Development Corporation for assistance in any aspect of their operations and, in each case (a) what was the municipal unit (b) what assistance was provided and for what reason?


Mr.   Ed. Lumley@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion: The reply for the Cape Breton Development Corporation is as follows: 1.
Municipal Unit	Grant	Loan	Reasons for AssistanceCounty of Cape Breton	$248,743	$252,515	Regional sewer and water programCounty of Inverness	75,948	Water projectCounty of Inverness	39,920	Paving Margaree Airport For use by the Counties on projectsCounty of Inverness	83,400	related to development For use by the Counties on projectsCounty of Victoria	160,000	related to development For use by the Counties on projectsCounty of Richmond	200,000	related to development7,295	Donation of land and materials35,984	Regional sewer and water programTown of Glace Bay	162,587	83,522	Regional sewer and water programTown of Dominion	26.730	For beach improvementTown of Dominion	19,340	19,340	Regional sewer and water programTown of New Waterford	75,326	67,700	Regional sewer and water programTown of New Waterford	1,000	For fire department25,000	For railway clean-upTown of Sydney Mines	2,500	Towards cost of repairing Pitt StreetTown of Sydney Mines	21.205	21,205	Regional sewer and water programTown of North Sydney	16,755	Regional sewer and water programTown of Louisbourg	21,755	21,755	Regional sewer and water program Towards renovation of Town Hall andTown of Louisbourg	26,490	clean-up Contribution towards municipal areaMetro Planning Commission Sydney Harbour ports Regional	32,129	share of the budget Share in the cost of the promotion andDevelopment Board	30,000	development of the port
2. An uncounted number of discussions of this matter have taken place over several years with all the municipalities of Cape Breton County. The position of the corporation is that major financing from senior governments could not realistically be expected for isolated projects. There would have to be a comprehensive regional plan. To this end, the corporation has helped to finance the metropolitan planning commission, representing the municipalities. When that did not produce a plan, the corporation provided a full time member of its staff to act as Manager in the development of a plan for the provincial department of municipal affairs. This work has been proceeding for over twelve months and is now almost complete. When it is, the corporation will work with other agencies to secure implementation of an agreed plan.


Mr. Muir: (Actual)
$'s
		Travel
Name	Fees	ExpensesG. Burlock	2,144	988B. Davis	M. Fox	626	473L. George	1,278	5041.	How many individuals are employed or under contract on Cape Breton Island, Nova Scotia, by Statistics Canada and how many are involved in field work?2.	What are the names of those who are involved in (a) field work (b) contract work and, in each case, what is the (i) salary of those who are employees (ii) amount received by those under contract in fees and expenses for the fiscal year1975-	76 and the estimated cost for 1976-77?


Mr. Hugh Poulin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: In so far as Statistics Canada is concerned: 1. As of November 1, 1976, 15 individuals hired under the authority of the Statistics Act were employed on Cape Breton Island as part-time interviewers on the various field surveys conducted by Statistics Canada.
2. The 15 part-time employees working on Cape Breton Island for Statistics Canada as at November 1, 1976 were all involved on field work, and their fees and travel expenses for
1976-	77, estimated, and for 1975-76, where applicable, are as follows:
(Estimated)
S's
Total	Fees	Travel Expenses	Total3,132	2,664	962	3,6262,945	411	3,3561,099	1,414	837	2,2511,782	488	209	697
March 25, 1977
Order Paper Questions
Name	Fees	1975-76 (Actual) S's T ravel ExpensesJ. LaRusic	1,552	247G. Leadbeater	1,717	958S. MacArthur B. MacKenzie	2,178	1,681A. Marple	1,245	1,177J. Moore E. Murchison	4,486	1,590E. O'Neill W. O'Shaughnessy	2.448	1,098E. Skinner V. Weatherby	2,146	1,356
(Estimated)
S's
Total	Fees	Travel Expenses	Total1,799	2,021	238	2,2592,675	2,232	1,041	3,2732,097	654	2,7513,859	2,065	1,609	3,6742,422	765	514	1,279598	197	7956,076	5,951	3,187	9,138232	53	2853,546	3,472	1,710	5,182939	642	1,5813,502	2,108	1,761	3,869


Mr. Muir: 1.	Since its inception, has the Cape Breton Development Corporation undertaken on its own any projects and, if so (a) what is a description of each (b) what (i) was the objective of each (ii) was the cost of each (iii) were the results?
2.	What has been the long-term employment produced from each project as of this date?


Mr.   Ed. Lumley@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion: The reply for the Cape Breton Development Corporation is as follows: 1. See following schedule.
2. For most projects the objective is to increase the market for other Cape Breton production rather than the direct employment. For the direct employment alone in the order of projects, refer to the following schedule.
(ii) Capital
1. Project Name	(a) Description	(b)(i) Objective	Cost	(iii) Results	2. EmploymentPoint Edward Marine & Ind. Park.	Ind. Site and Harbour Facilities	To improve facilities and services to industrial operations in a centrally located area	$358,000	Direct employment maintained and new industries obtained.	72Island Crafts	Wholesale distribution of Cape Breton hand-made crafts	To stimulate production of handcrafts made locally and supplement the income of the producers.	$58,000	Project steadily progressing Cape Breton handcrafts arc now accepted locally and nationally.	4Cape Breton Steam Railway	Historic Steam Railway Operation-two steam locomotives and rolling stock plus other railway related attractions	To provide tourists with a trip down memory lane to the days of the old steam railway operations	$1,270,000	A strong tourist attraction but needs to be set on more economic basis	12 seasonalInverness Beach Development	Tourist accommodations consisting of housekeeping cottages, campsite, huts, and beach facilities	To provide low cost family accommodations and recreational activities for tourists.	$1,200,000	Response in the first year very good number of housekeeping cottages being increased	1 regularly and 6 seasonalChowder Houses	Four fast food outlets featuring Cape Breton Seafood menu	To provide visitors with quick meals specializing in Cape Breton seafood the quality and service of which being controlled by the Corporation.	$220,000	Products offered being accepted favourably; three outlets now sold or leased to private operators, and fourth will be.	26 seasonalMabou Sheep Farm	Farm centrally located to demonstrate improved techniques and upgrading of stock quality	To help sheep farmers to strengthen their flocks	$94,972	Cape Breton Sheep industry has greatly expanded; farm now being leased	1Ewe Lamb Retention Program	Purchase of breeding ewe lambs to be boarded on existing sheep farms for a period not less than six years.	To increase the sheep population on the Island, strengthen existing flocks, and increase marketable lamb.	$56,000	Program has been very successful with the sheep Population more than doubling and participation in the lamb market increasing.	0
-V

[Mr. Poulin.)
March 25, 1977

Order Paper Questions
(ii) Capital
1. Project Name	(a) Description	(b)(i) Objective	Cost	(iii) Results	2. EmploymentLouisbourg- Restaurant Bakery-Reproductions	Restaurant featuring 18th century french cuisine, a bakery featuring (and exhibiting the preparation of) 18th century bread and a gift shop specializing in 18th century artifacts. All located within Fortress Louisbourg.	To provide Fortress visitors with food and souvenirs of the 18th century.	$ 160,000	Results for the first year were above expectations, and a profitable operation anticipated.	18 seasonalDundee Golf Course	First class golf course in a magnificant location overlooking the Bras d'Or Lakes.	To provide a facility that will increase and prolong the stay of tourists	$690,000	1977 will be the first year of operation	not determinedPrincess Mine Tour and	Tour of 100 year old	To provide tourists with	$425,000	Both mine tours and	4 regular and 12Restaurant	mine and a dining area steeped in the history of Princess Mine.	an insight into coal mining	restaurant received excellent support in initial year	seasonalFrench Mine	Re-opening the 18th century workings at Port Morien, which was the earliest coal mining operation in North America.	To provide tourists with a view of the first coal mined in North America.	$227,000	Much appreciated but numbers not as great as hoped.	5 seasonalWhale Cove Summery Village	Complex of 20 housekeeping cottages and beach facility.	To supply low cost family accommodation for tourists	$270,000	Initial year of operation exceeded all forecasts an expansion is nowunderway	1 regular and 4 seasonalC.B. Lamb Ltd.	Importation of sheep from United Kingdom	To strengthen present sheep flocks on the Island and increase the production of marketable C.B. Lamb.	$700,000	Two importations have been carried out, the imported sheep have adapted well with a successful lambing season completed.	4Marine Farming	Growing of oysters, raising of trout and other marine species to be marketed on a commercial scale.	To establish a marine farming industry capable of expansion by fishermen.	$1,895,000	An imported disease caused a major setback in 1976, but with perseverance it is anticipated that this experiment can become the base of an important commercial industry.	Darr Cape Breton Ltd.	Apartment, office building, and 122 unit motel complex.	To supply up-to-date office space and dwellings for prospective businesses, also motel accommodations for tourists.	$5,000,000	Office and apartment building rented to capacity and complex beginning to generate enough cash to now cover interest and principal payments.	62Highland Heights Inn	Motel and dining room	To attract tourists to an hitherto undeveloped area.	$310,000	Facility rented and obtaining increasing use to point that expansion is now required.	15 seasonal


Mr. Muir: What industrial development projects has DEVCO assisted in, on Cape Breton Island, with grants or loans in the fiscal year (a) 1975-76 (b) 1976-77 to date and, in each case, what has been the amount and how many jobs have been created?


Mr.   Ed. Lumley@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion: The reply for the Cape Breton Development Corporation is as follows:
(a)	(b)	Full time job equivalent created directlyProject	1975-76	1976-77	or maintainedLoans H. J. Francis Ltd.	$15,000	5Strathlorn Veg. Stand	6,000	3D. Goldman and Sons Ltd. .	1 5,000	3National Sea Products Ltd.	301,400	35Claude Moore	3,000	1Serendipity Souvenirs	1,200	4Meat Cove Pottery Farm	2,000	700	4
March 25, 1977
Order Paper Questions
			Full time	Cheticamp Pastries			
job equivalent	Ltd.	25,000	22(a)	(b)	created directly	Ronnie's Lobster Pound	20,000	4Project	1975-76	1976-77	or maintained	C. B. Eels Ltd.	14,400	5Loans	Leo MacNeil	1,000	1Donald MacKay	5,000	1Avard MacLean Suxtaglume Ltd. Ron Hornsby	1,000	2,200 13,000 3,500	2 5 1	Atlantic Strataquarium Ken Boyd Malcolm Parsons	16,000 4,800 3,750	2 1 1Tartan Bakery Ltd.	16,000	16	Grants	Margaree Window and	North Shore Farmers	Door Frame Ltd.	40,000	10	Assoc.	13,900	3Cabotcraft Industries	Margaree Window and	Ltd.	460,000	258,000	34	Door Frame	15,000	See aboveIsland Resources Ltd.	30,000	3	Richmond Fisheries	Bed and Breakfast	20,300	1,400	9	Ltd.	252,300	242,300	250Lobster Kettle	5,000	2	C.B. Tourist Assoc.	26,000	8Inverness Cruise Boat	7,000	2	N.S. Forest Industries	Reeves Modular Homes	20,600	45	(Interest Subsidy)	412,500	276,200	1,600United Maritime	Cheticamp Historical	Fisheries Co-op	60,000	25	Centre	129,800	5


Mr. Muir: 1.	What is the total number of projects to date, that the Cape Breton Development Corporation has been involved in with private individuals or concerns since its inception?
2.	Of the total number of projects, on how many occasions did DEVCO involve itself to such individuals or firms with loans or grants?
3.	Of the individuals or firms to whom DEVCO made grants or loans, how many (a) are still in operation (b) have closed?
4.	(a) What are the names of the firms no longer in operation (b) how much did they receive in grants or loans (c) what was the maximum number of
employees made available by the operation of the firm (d) how many employees were on staff at the time of the closure?
5.	Of the firms that have closed, how much of the monies in grants and loans has been recovered in each case?


Mr.   Ed. Lumley@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion: The reply for the Cape Breton Development Corporation is as follows: 1. About 1,600 inquiries have been dealt with and of these just over 800 have reached the assessment stage.
2.	216, of which 197 are loans and 19 grants.
3.	(a) 202, (b) 14.
				4. (c)	5.
4. (b)	How many	How much inTotal Amount Received	Employees	Loans4. (a)	Grant	Loan	Start-up	on Staff	RecoveredBreton Versatrek	$60,000	$1,802,586	1968	20	$53,076Richmond Plastics	70,000	1968	35	Andercraft Forest	40 in woodlands	Products	-	31 1.957	1969	30 in mill	Hustler Products Corp	65,000	657,992	1969	34	323,000W. T. Lynch and Sons	270,000	1969	70	Rhand Electronics	37,837	714.472	1969	40	312,472W. A. Kennedy	28,000	55,000	1970	14	305Sydney Vending	29,500	1972	16**	624Barry Watson	9,800	1975	1	Kaiser Strontium Ltd	3,500,000	1970	3.500,000Kaiser Celestite Ltd	1,500,000	1970	100	1,500,000Richard Cox	8,500	1972	1	8,500Sydney Steel Erectors	25,000	1974 3	25,000	J. W. O'Connor	40.000	158,997	1973	25	*71,322
Re: (d) we do not have records of the number at the date of closing.
* To date, final recovery is expected to be close to total loan.
** Employment maintained under present owner. Major Vending Co.


Mr. Halliday: Has any department provided a grant or loan, or other form of financial assistance, to West Royalty Hydraulics Ltd., or a company with a similar name in Prince Edward Island and which is owned or controlled by Mr. Bill Valavaara and, if so, what was the amount and nature of such assistance?


Ralph Goodale: In so far as the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is concerned: Yes. West Royalty Hydraulics Ltd., of West Royalty, Prince Edward Island accepted an offer of a development incentive grant under RDIA of $54,324 on May 28, 1976 to establish a new facility in West Royalty, Prince Edward Island.

In so far as the Department of Manpower and Immigration is concerned, two contracts have been signed with West Royalty Hydraulics Ltd. under the Canada Manpower Industrial Training Program. Assistance is in the form of reimbursement of a share of the costs incurred for employee training. The details of the contracts are as follows: Contract No. 1: Date of Contract: November 15, 1976; Occupation Trained: Hydraulics Technician (1); Maximum Cost to Canada: $2,280; Course Duration: 20 weeks. Contract No. 2: Date of Contract: February 14, 1977; Occupation Trained: Machinist Apprentice (1); Maximum Cost to Canada: $1,560; Course Duration: 20 weeks.

March 25, 1977


Mr. Herbert: For each five year period since 1960, what percentage of all postal costs is labour, including fringe benefits?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: Period: 1960-61 to 1964-65, 57.1 percent; 1965-66 to 1969-70, 71.1 percent; 1970-71 to 1974-75, 69.4 percent.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Does the Department of Public Works keep any record of humidity conditions in buildings used by the government?
2.	What monies have been spent in the past five years to improve humidity conditions in existing buildings?


Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: 1. No, not as a matter of routine.
2. Projects for the exclusive purpose of improving humidity conditions in existing buildings are seldom undertaken. Normally, the requirement for humidity control contributes to the scope of a project undertaken to air-condition existing office space. However, the Department of Public Works accounting system does not provide for the extraction of that portion of the total project cost which could be exclusively attributed to the improvement of humidity control.
The	following reply is also in response to questions Nos.
1,654,	1,655,	1,656,	1,657,	1,658,	1,659,	1,660,	1,661,	1,662,1,663,	1,664,	1,665,	1,666,	1,667,	1,668,	1,669,	1,670,	1,671,1,672,	1,673,	1,674,	1,675,	1,676,	1,677,	1,678,	1,679,	1,680
and 1,681.


Mr. Dick: 1.	In (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976 (d) 1977 to date, did the President of the Privy Council, since he has been a Member of the Cabinet, use a private railway car and, if so, on what dates or during what period of time?
2.	In each case (a) for what purpose was the car used and what was the nature of the Minister's business (b) in what municipalities were stops made?


Otto Emil Lang: According to Beauchesne citation 171(d), questions must not repeat in substance or with slight variations questions already answered, a situation which applies to these inquiries (see response to question No. 11 page 459 of Hansard for October 26, 1976).


Mr. Dick: 1.	In (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976 (d) 1977 to date, did the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, since he has been a Member of the Cabinet, use a private railway car and, if so, on what dates or during what period of time?
2.	In each case (a) for what purpose was the car used and what was the nature of the Minister's business (b) in what municipalities were stops made?

Question No. 1,655-Mr. Dick:
1.	In (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976 (d) 1977 to date, did the Minister of Finance, since he has been a Member of the Cabinet, use a private railway car and, if so, on what dates or during what period of time?
2.	In each case (a) for what purpose was the car used and what was the nature of the Minister's business (b) in what municipalities were stops made?

Question No. 1,656-Mr. Dick:
1. In (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976 (d) 1977 to date, did the Minister of Labour, since he has been a Member of the Cabinet, use a private railway car and, if so, on what dates or during what period of time?
Order Paper Questions
2. In each case (a) for what purpose was the car used and what was the nature of the Minister's business (b) in what municipalities were stops made?

Question No. 1,657-Mr. Dick:
1.	In (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976 (d) 1977 to date, did the Minister of Justice, since he has been a Member of the Cabinet, use a private railway car and, if so, on what dates or during what period of time?
2.	In each case (a) for what purpose was the car used and what was the nature of the Minister's business (b) in what municipalities were stops made?

Question No. 1,658-Mr. Dick:
1.	In (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976 (d) 1977 to date, did the Secretary of State for External Affairs, since he has been a Member of the Cabinet, use a private railway car and, if so, on what dates or during what period of time?
2.	In each case (a) for what purpose was the car used and what was the nature of the Minister's business (b) in what municipalities were stops made?

Question No. 1,659-Mr. Dick:
1.	In (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976 (d) 1977 to date, did the President of the Treasury Board, since he has been a Member of the Cabinet, use a private railway car and, if so, on what dates or during what period of time?
2.	In each case (a) for what purpose was the car used and what was the nature of the Minister's business (b) in what municipalities were stops made?

Question No. 1,660-Mr. Dick:
1.	In (a) 1974 (b) 1975	(c)	1976 (d) 1977	to	date, did the Minister ofNational Defence, since he	has	been a Member	of	the Cabinet, use a private
railway car and, if so, on what dates or during what period of time?
2.	In each case (a) for what purpose was the car used and what was the nature of the Minister's business (b) in wfiat municipalities were stops made?

Question No. 1,661-Mr. Dick:
1.	In (a) 1974 (b) 1975	(c)	1976 (d) 1977	to	date, did the Minister of
Transport, since he has been	a Member of the Cabinet, use a private railway car
and, if so, on what dates or during what period of time?
2.	In each case (a) for what purpose was the car used and what was the nature of the Minister's business (b) in what municipalities were stops made?

Question No. 1,662-Mr. Dick:
1.	In (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976 (d) 1977 to date, did the Minister of Supply and Services, since he has been a Member of the Cabinet, use a private railway car and, if so, on what dates or during what period of time?
2.	In each case (a) for what purpose was the car used and what was the nature of the Minister's business (b) in what municipalities were stops made?

Question No. 1,663-Mr. Dick:
1.	In (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976 (d) 1977 to date, did the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, since he has been a Member of the Cabinet, use a private railway car and, if so, on what dates or during what period of time?
2.	In each case (a) for what purpose was the car used and what was the nature of the Minister's business (b) in what municipalities were stops made?

Question No. 1,664-Mr. Dick:
1.	In (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976 (d) 1977 to date, did the Minister of Agriculture, since he has been a Member of the Cabinet, use a private railway car and, if so, on what dates or during what period of time?
2.	In each case (a) for what purpose was the car used and what was the nature of the Minister's business (b) in what municipalities were stops made?

Question No. 1,665-Mr. Dick:
1.	In (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976 (d) 1977 to date, did the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, since he has been a Member of the Cabinet, use a private railway car and, if so, on what dates or during what period of time?
2.	In each case (a) for what purpose was the car used and what was the nature of the Minister's business (b) in what municipalities were stops made?

Question No. 1,666-Mr. Dick:
1. In (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976 (d) 1977 to date, did the Minister of Veterans Affairs, since he has been a Member of the Cabinet, use a private railway car and, if so, on what dates or during what period of time?

March 25, 1977
Order Paper Questions
2. In each case (a) for what purpose was the car used and what was the nature of the Minister's business (b) in what municipalities were stops made?

Question No. 1,667-Mr. Dick:
1.	In (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976 (d) 1977 to date, did the Minister of National Health and Welfare, since he has been a Member of the Cabinet, use a private railway car and, if so, on what dates or during what period of time?
2.	In each case (a) for what purpose was the car used and what was the nature of the Minister's business (b) in what municipalities were stops made?

Question No. 1,668-Mr. Dick:
1.	In (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976 (d) 1977 to date, did the Minister of Communications, since she has been a Member of the Cabinet, use a private railway car and, if so, on what dates or during what period of time?
2.	In each case (a) for what purpose was the car used and what was the nature of the Minister's business (b) in what municipalities were stops made?

Question No. 1,669-Mr. Dick:
1.	In (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976 (d) 1977 to date, did the Minister of Public Works, since he has been a Member of the Cabinet, use a private railway car and, if so, on what dates or during what period of time?
2.	In each case (a) for what purpose was the car used and what was the nature of the Minister's business (b) in what municipalities were stops made?

Question No. 1,670-Mr. Dick:
1.	In (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976 (d) 1977 to date, did the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment, since he has been a Member of the Cabinet, use a private railway car and, if so, on what dates or during what period of time?
2.	In each case (a) for what purpose was the car used and what was the nature of the Minister's business (b) in what municipalities were stops made?

Question No. 1,671-Mr. Dick:
1.	In (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976 (d) 1977 to date, did the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, since he has been a Member of the Cabinet, use a private railway car and, if so, on what dates or during what period of time?
2.	In each case (a) for what purpose was the car used and what was the nature of the Minister's business (b) in what municipalities were stops made?

Question No. 1,672-Mr. Dick:
1.	In (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976 (d) 1977 to date, did the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, since he has been a Member of the Cabinet, use a private railway car and, if so, on what dates or during what period of time?
2.	In each case (a) for what purpose was the car used and what was the nature of the Minister's business (b) in what municipalities were stops made?

Question No. 1,673-Mr. Dick:
1.	In (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976 (d) 1977 to date, did the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, since he has been a Member of the Cabinet, use a private railway car and, if so, on what dates or during what period of time?
2.	In each case (a) for what purpose was the car used and what was the nature of the Minister's business (b) in what municipalities were stops made?

Question No. 1,674-Mr. Dick:
1.	In (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976 (d) 1977 to date, did the Minister of National Revenue, since she has been a Member of the Cabinet, use a private railway car and, if so, on what dates or during what period of time?
2.	In each case (a) for what purpose was the car used and what was the nature of the Minister's business (b) in what municipalities were stops made?

Question No. 1,675-Mr. Dick:
1.	In (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976 (d) 1977 to date, did the Postmaster General, since he has been a Member of the Cabinet, use a private railway car and, if so, on what dates or during what period of time?
2.	In each case (a) for what purpose was the car used and what was the nature of the Minister's business (b) in what municipalities were stops made?

Question No. 1,676-Mr. Dick:
1.	In (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976 (d) 1977 to date, did the Solicitor General, since he has been a Member of the Cabinet, use a private railway car and, if so, on what dates or during what period of time?
2.	In each case (a) for what purpose was the car used and what was the nature of the Minister's business (b) in what municipalities were stops made?

Question No. 1,677-Mr. Dick:
1.	In (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976 (d) 1977 to date, did the Secretary of State, since he has been a Member of the Cabinet, use a private railway car and, if so, on what dates or during what period of time?
2.	In each case (a) for what purpose was the car used and what was the nature of the Minister's business (b) in what municipalities were stops made?

Question No. 1,678-Mr. Dick:
1.	In (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976 (d) 1977 to date, did the Minister of State (Small Businesses), since he has been a Member of the Cabinet, use a private railway car and, if so, on what dates or during what period of time?
2.	In each case (a) for what purpose was the car used and what was the nature of the Minister's business (b) in what municipalities were stops made?

Question No. 1,679-Mr. Dick:
1.	In (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976 (d) 1977 to date, did the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, since he has been a Member of the Cabinet, use a private railway car and, if so, on what dates or during what period of time?
2.	In each case (a) for what purpose was the car used and what was the nature of the Minister's business (b) in what municipalities were stops made?

Question No. 1,680-Mr. Dick:
1.	In (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976 (d) 1977 to date, did the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport), since she has been a Member of the Cabinet, use a private railway car and, if so, on what dates or during what period of time?
2.	In each case (a) for what purpose was the car used and what was the nature of the Minister's business (b) in what municipalities were stops made?

Question No. 1,681-Mr. Dick:
1.	In (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976 (d) 1977 to date, did the Minister of State for Science and Technology, since he has been a Member of the Cabinet, use a private railway car and, if so, on what dates or during what period of time?
2.	In each case (a) for what purpose was the car used and what was the nature of the Minister's business (b) in what municipalities were stops made?


Mr. Crosbie: 1.	Did the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources state on February 1, 1977 that Eastcan Exploration Limited of Calgary is not prepared to go ahead with an exploration programme off the coast of Labrador during the summer of 1977 unless a dispute over regulations proposed by Newfoundland is settled and, if so, on what date was a meeting held between the Minister and Eastcan Exploration Limited when these matters were discussed?
2.	Was the Minister authorized by Eastcan Exploration Limited or any officer or director thereof to make public statements in connection with any conversations the Minister held with the company concerning its position on exploration off Labrador during 1977 and, if so, on what date and by whom was the Minister authorized to make such a statement?
3.	Has Eastcan Exploration Limited or any of the members thereof indicated to the Minister or the Department that it supports and is satisfied with the Arctic and Offshore Regulations proposed by the government and, if so, what is his name?
4.	Did the Minister state that he intends to intervene in an attempt to settle a dispute alleged between Newfoundland and Eastcan Exploration Limited and, if so (a) how does he intend to intervene (b) what methods of persuasion or pressure does the Minister intend to use if the Province of Newfoundland rejects his intervention?
March 25, 1977


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows: 1. In December Eastcan indicated to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources that it would be unable to continue drilling operations on its federal permits offshore from Labrador unless it received assurances from the Newfoundland Government that its interests offshore from Labrador would not be nullified or expropriated in the event that the province was successful in acquiring jurisdiction over the offshore areas involved as a result of the forthcoming agreed joint Reference to the Supreme Court of Canada. On Janaury 31 of this year the company advised the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources that it was now in receipt of draft regulations prepared by the Newfoundland Government and, while the company could not discuss their content, it was of the view it could not proceed with this year's drilling program on the basis of those regulations.
2.	A Minister of the Federal Crown requires no authorization from the private sector to make public satements.
3.	The group of companies of which Total Eastcan Exploration Ltd. is a partner in respect of federal oil and gas rights offshore from Newfoundland and Labrador has indicated in discussions with federal authorities that it would be prepared to continue drilling operations on these rights if the Newfoundland Government provided the assurances referred to in the response to Question 1. This would indicate that the group considers that the provisions of the proposed federal regulations that have been made public are not such as to inhibit the companies involved from undertaking the heavy investments necessary to conduct oil and gas drilling operations offshore from Labrador.
4.	Yes. (a) The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has spoken with Premier Moores and also sent him a telex to endeavour to initiate discussions leading to a resolution of the problem, (b) Not applicable, pending results of discussions referred to in (a).


Mr. Herbert: 1.	What were the names of the contractors that submitted bids for the extension to the Frobisher Bay General Hospital and what were the amounts in each case?
2.	What was the departmental estimate of the cost of the work?
3.	Is it intended to recall tenders?
4.	Will there be changes to the scope of the construction?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. Name of Contractor: Ron Engineering Construction (Eastern Limited). Bid, $4,780,000. Tower Company (1961). Bid, $5,188,866.
2. The Department of Public Works' cost estimate for the work was $4,000,000.
Order Paper Questions
4.	Yes. A complete redesign is planned in order to effect a general cost reduction in all areas.


Mr. Crosbie: 1.	Has the Government of Newfoundland informed the government that it wishes to establish a unified family court having jurisdiction over all matrimonial and family proceedings, including divorce, legal separation, alimony and maintenance of children and matrimonial property and, if so, does the government support such a request and will it enter into an agreement with Newfoundland for the establishment of such a court as a pilot project?
2.	Is the government prepared to cost-share in the establishment and operation of such a court and, if so, what part of the costs is the government prepared to pay?
3.	Has the government entered into an agreement with any other province dealing with such a court and, if so (a) which province and on what date (b) what are the main conditions of any such agreement?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: 1. The Minister of Justice met with the Attorney General for Newfoundland, in St. John's Newfoundland, March 4, 1977. Following their meeting the ministers issued a joint announcement that they had agreed to the establishing of an experimental Unified Family court project for the St. John's area. The ministers noted in their announcement that the establishment of the experimental Unified Family Court project is contingent upon agreement between the federal and provincial governments on certain specific details.
2.	While specific details as to the distribution of costs have yet to be decided upon, it was agreed that the costs of the experiment are to be shared by both governments. Vote number 10 of the Department of Justice set out in the estimates for the fiscal period ending March 31, 1978 provides for contributions for pilot projects relating to family courts throughout Canada in the total amount of $350,000.
3.	At present the government has entered into negotiations for Unified Family Courts in the provinces of Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. While agreement in principle has been reached in Manitoba and Ontario, no formal agreement for joint funding of a Unified Family Court pilot project has yet been entered into by the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of a province. Some funds have been expended, however, to pay for the joint funding of the evaluation of the unified family court pilot project commenced by British Columbia in 1974.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	In the month of (a) July (b) August (c) September (d) October (e) November (f) December 1976, how many persons were in receipt of the Spouse's Allowance provided under the Old Age Security Act and how many were (i) male (ii) female?
2.	In the same months, how many persons who had been receiving the Spouse's Allowance had it discontinued because of the death of the older spouse and how many were (a) male (b) female?
3. Yes.

March 25, 1977
Order Paper Questions


Marc Lalonde: 1.
Number of Spouse's Allowance
Month	Recipients
(a)	July. 1976	62,508(b)	August, 1976	63,695(c)	September, 1976	66,002(d)	October, 1976	67,590(e)	November, 1976	69,169(f)	December, 1976	70,029
2.
Month
(a)	July, 1976
(b)	August, 1976
(c)	September, 1976
(d)	October, 1976
(e)	November, 1976
(f)	December, 1976
Number of Spouse's Allowance recipients who had their benefit discontinued due to death of the pensioner spouse 194 185 193 215 205 202
Note: Statistics differentiating the sex of benefit recipients are not maintained.


Mr. Herbert: Is any record kept of the number of veterans presently working for the Department of Veterans Affairs and, if so, what is the percentage in each section?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: No.


Mr. Herbert:: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. I wish to draw to the attention of the parliamentary secretary, as I have privately drawn to the attention of the parliamentary secretary responsible for the answering of these questions, a series of 26 questions, Nos. 1,424 to 1,429 inclusive, which were placed on the order paper on December 21 and ask of the various departments the names of the deputy ministers of the last nine years and the date of their appointments.
I find it inconceivable that departments do not keep employment records concerning deputy ministers. Those questions were placed on the order paper following the statement made in this H ouse by the President of theTreasury Board establishing the royal commission on financial management and accountability. Included in the terms of reference of that royal commission was evaluation of the administrative performance of deputy ministers and heads of Crown agencies. It would be extremely helpful if we could know who the deputy ministers, are, how long they have been in their jobs, their experience and the date of appointment to their positions.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, 1 note my colleague's presentation and I will pursue the matter and report to him.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-23, to facilitate conversion to the metric system of measurement, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. At this stage of the metric conversion bill there are for consideration at the report stage eight motions, seven of which stand in the name of the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil). Of those, six-in the opinion of the Chair-have basically the same intent and, therefore, subject to any suggestions to the contrary, could be grouped together both for discussion and vote. I refer to motions 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8 standing in the name of the hon. member for Moose Jaw. Unless it is otherwise suggested, they could be grouped together for discussion. I might be persuaded, if there is some necessity to split them for the purpose of voting, so to do. If that seems necessary, or if that necessity develops during the course of discussion, then certainly representations could be entertained about splitting them if the House is of such disposition.
Motion No. 3, in the name of the hon. member for Qu'Ap-pelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) should be debated and voted on separately. Motion No. 6, in the name of the hon. member for Moose Jaw, has a different intent and ought to be discussed and voted on separately. Unless during the course of discussion some indication to the contrary develops, perhaps the House is prepard to proceed with the discussion and disposition of the motions as I have proposed. If so, I would now call for consideration the six motions previously referred to standing in the name of the hon. member for Moose Jaw.


Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw) moved:: Motion No. 1.
That Bill C-23, an act to facilitate conversion to the metric system of measurement, be amended in clause 2 by striking out line 11 at page 1 and substituting the following therefor:
"in those definitions, the words "acres and hectares"."
Motion No. 2.
That Bill C-23, an act to facilitate conversion to the metric system of measurement, be amended in clause 2 by striking out line 22 at page 1 and substituting the following therefor:
"sions, the words "bushel and tonne"."
Motion No. 4.
March 25, 1977

That Bill C-23, an act to facilitate conversion to the metric system of measurement, be amended in clause 6 by striking out line 26 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"provisions, the words "acreage and hectare"."
Motion No. 5.
That Bill C-23, an act to facilitate conversion to the metric system of measurement, be amended in clause 6 by striking out tine 35 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"sions, the words "bushel and tonne"."
Motion No. 7.
That Bill C-23, an act to facilitate conversion to the metric system of measurement, be amended in clause 8 by striking out line 8 at page 6 and substituting the following therefor:
"sions, the words "bushel and tonne"."
Motion No. 8.
That Bill C-23, an act to facilitate conversion to the metric system of measurement, be amended in clause 10 by striking out line 32 at page 8 and substituting the following therefor:
" "bushel and tonne" and "acre and hectare", respectively."
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak on the motions I have placed before the House. There is deep concern among western farmers about conversion to the metric system. Frankly, I sympathize with the minister because I think he has been mesmerized, and possibly misled, by the Metric Commission which led him to believe that western producers and farmers unanimously favoured the metric system. Even a member from western Canada, the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale) was of the same conviction. On second reading, he said in this House on January 26, as reported on page 2422 of Hansard'.
1 want to deal with a few of the aspects of metric conversion affecting grain which may not be fully appreciated but upon the basis of which I believe this measure is not only supportable but is also in the best long-run interests of all segments of the grains industry, including producers in the prairie region. First, it should be noted that this change has a broad and virtually unanimous base of support in the farm community.
That is just not so. Western farmers are almost unanimously opposed to the metric system. How did the minister come to that conclusion? The Metric Commission, a group of bureaucrats, set up what they called a subcommittee, the Canadian bulk grain handling committee. Who was on that committee? It is interesting to read the organizations represented on that commission. We start off with a representative from the Canadian Grain Commission, the Canadian Feed Manufacturers' Association, the Canada Grains Council, the Pioneer Grain Company Limited, the Alberta Wheat Pool, the United Grain Growers, the Canadian Wheat Board, the Ontario Grain and Feed Dealers Association, the Alberta Wheat Pool, again, the Canadian Grain Commission, again, the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, the Anglo-Canadian Grain Company, the Department of Agriculture for the province of Saskatchewan and a co-ordinator from the Metric Commission.
Almost without exception each and every one of the organizations represented on that commission has a vested interest. Those people represent organizations which are in the grain handling industry. If you examine the list you will see there is not one producer represented on the committee, a committee
Metric System
presumably set up to advise the Metric Commission, which in turn will advise the minister. The minister was not at the committee hearings, but possibly he read the reports of the standing committee. If so, he will recall that the committee had representatives appear from various organizations. I will list them. They are the Canadian Wheat Board, the Farm Grain Services Union,. Unifarm, the Manitoba Farm Bureau, SARM, the Saskatchewan Urban Municipalities Association, and the NFU.
It is interesting to note that the representatives who appeared on behalf of the National Farmers Union did not come from western Canada, despite the fact there were some in this part of the country at the time. They sent the vice-president, who comes from Prince Edward Island, and a representative from the province of Ontario.
This bill has to do with producers in the Canadian Wheat Board area which, as hon. members know, is western Canada. It takes in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and part of the Peace River. The representatives of all the organizations which appeared, with the exception of the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities and the Saskatchewan Association of Urban Municipalities, led the committee to believe that they represented the majority of the farmers in the west and that those whom they represented were in favour of metrication.
The representative of SARM was a farmer. He represents the Association of Rural Municipalities. There is no one who is closer to the farmer than the representatives of the rural municipalities. He stated that, as far as he could determine, farmers were not in favour of metrication. The representative from the Urban Municipalities Association lives in the small city of Estevan, with a population of about 5,000.


Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Nine
thousand.


Douglas Charles Neil: The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) says it is 9,000. That city has dealings all the time with the farm population. It is dependent upon the farm economy. The representative said he had talked to many farmers and as far as he could determine no farmer was in favour of metrication.
The representatives of all the other farm organizations who appeared at the committee hearings said that their people were in favour. However, on being questioned by members of the committee they admitted they had not made any attempt to determine the feelings of their memberships. All they could tell us in committee was that they had not received a motion from any of their locals, districts or individual members opposing metrication. Because they had not received any representations or motions they assumed that their memberships were unanimously in favour of the bill. Under questioning they also indicated that they had taken no active steps after the bill was debated on second reading to determine the feelings of their memberships.
Prior to, during and after the committee hearings some of us contacted the minister. We sent copies of resolutions indicating the feelings of the farm organizations and individuals. I am

March 25, 1977
Metric System
sure that many other letters were sent to him directly. I go to my constituency almost every weekend. 1 have occasion to travel in the constituency and talk to farmers. 1 have yet to find one farmer who is in favour of the metric bill.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: You are wrong-Ralph Goodale is.


Douglas Charles Neil: Ralph is not a farmer. As a matter of fact, I was in the constituency of the hon. member for Assiniboia. A few minutes ago I quoted from his speech as reported in Hansard where he said that as far as he could see the farmers in his area were unanimously in favour of metric conversion. I spoke to a group of about 150 people in the hon. member's constituency. I commented on the metric system, what we were trying to do and how we were trying to bring in amendments to have a dual system. There was not one person in that crowd who was not opposed to the metric system. I think some members opposite should go back to their constituencies and talk to the farmers they represent.
In addition to talking to farmers and farm organizations, I have received a large number of letters. I do not have the time to quote them all. One letter I received was from the Moose Jaw agricultural society. They sent me a copy of a resolution passed at a meeting held on February 1 1, 1977. Their resolution, which appears cn the letterhead of the association, reads as follows:
The association does not concur with the total conversion of the metric system on bushels to tonnes and acres to hectares and that it be a dual system.
A few days ago I received a letter from one of the local pool committees. It is dated March 9.


An hon. Member:: You are lucky to have received it so soon.


Douglas Charles Neil: That is correct, the mail system being the way it is. This letter reads:
At a meeting of the Boharm wheat pool committee held March 7, 1977, a motion was unanimously passed that we are not in favour of acres being converted to hectares at the farm level.
It is interesting to note, also, that at a recent meeting of the Federal Co-operatives in Regina the delegates opposed conversion, according to a report which appeared in the Co-operative Consumer of March 15. The news report reads in part:
A majority of the delegates to the Federated Co-operatives annual meeting want the federal government to reconsider the metrication of land measurement and they strongly oppose any further conversion to metric in the lumber industry.
This is an organization in which there is a great deal of farm representation. While the standing committee was considering this bill, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture was holding its annual meeting in Ottawa. It is my understanding, after talking to some of the people who were there and reading newspaper reports, that a motion was put forward at the meeting opposing the metric system. I understand there was considerable debate on the subject, at the end of which it was decided to table the motion. So there can be no doubt that the majority of farmers are opposed to the metric system. I think

it is safe to say that between 95 per cent and 100 per cent of the farmers in western Canada are opposed to metrification. But I would add this: farmers understand that the world is gradually converting to the metric system and that eventually we shall end up using a complete metric system in this country. However, they also know that such a decision has not yet been taken in the United States, and they feel that because of our close trade relationship with the United States any action we take should be in step with that taken by the Americans.
My amendments simply call upon the government, under the wheat stabilization legislation, under the program for cash advances for crops, under the two-price system for wheat, and so on, to use a dual system, a system which shows bushels, acres, tonnes and hectares. The farmer would then be able to choose the system he preferred. It would not be compulsory. It is likely that the majority of the older farmers in the west, who have been accustomed to using bushels and acres all their lives, will continue to do so. But the younger people who have studied the metric system in school and who are still close enough to their school days to be able to work out complicated calculations will likely use the metric system, and eventually we will end up with a situation in which all the farmers of western Canada will be using the metric system. All we are asking in these amendments is that the government give farmers in western Canada the opportunity of using either system.
I realize that the grain trade has told the minister that if the bill fails to go through, all the money spent on this scheme will have been lost. I suggest that this is a pack of nonsense. The grain trade has been selling grain on the international market, using the metric system, for many years. It does not require any law of this parliament for the grain companies, after they have accepted delivery of grain from the farmers, to use the metric system from that point through the elevator and on to export positions. How can the grain trade say to the minister that they cannot do without this legislation? It is nonsense. They can go ahead and use whatever system they wish.
The government is supposed to respect the wishes of the majority of the people. The majority of the people in western Canada who are farmers and producers are happy with acres and bushels. But, as 1 say, they realize we have to progress and they say, "We shall progress; but take it in stages. Give us the opportunity to convert over the years by letting us have a dual system." This is all that we on this side of the House are asking for, and that is the purpose of our amendments. I would ask the minister and members on the other side seriously to consider the representations which have been made on this subject both directly and through hon. members speaking from the opposition benches. Let these hon. gentlemen accept the fact that this is what the majority wants.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it is probably appropriate for me to rise at this point since a good deal of the change involved in the bill before us affects the grain industry in western Canada. I might begin by saying, in response to the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil), that we have indeed given very serious consideration to the atti-
March 25, 1977

tudes of farmers and producers throughout the Wheat Board region. We did, indeed, make quite clear that we would be asking the various institutions and organizations affected by these amendments to continue using the familiar measurement in terms of bushels and acres wherever feasible, which is practically everywhere so far as the farmers are concerned, as well as the measurement of hectares and tonnes in the metric system.
We did give serious consideration, as well, to the amendments which the hon. member has put on the order paper, because since we are proposing this practice it might have seemed that we could accept his amendments as well. However, there is a good and valid reason why there should be one basic, over-all legal practice for technical purposes, and that those measurements should be known and be certain so that we do not have a hodge-podge of some people using entirely "acres" and some using entirely "hectares" in our system. Therefore, we do not agree to the amendments proposed by the hon. member for Moose Jaw.
In view of the commitment to attempt to use this second measurement, I hope we will meet the feelings of the farmers. We recognize that they are concerned about the change-over from familiar measurements to others which are not familiar. However, it should be clear that in no case have we purported hereby to affect land measurement or similar questions. When the hon. member refers to those issues he is talking about matters largely within provincial jurisdiction, areas in which the provinces will also be proceeding. What we are proposing to do is to deal with the way in which the Wheat Board, the grain commission and like institutions will operate and to have a legal basis for the use of hectares, tonnes and kilograms in view of the move by Canada to the metric system.
I take it that the hon. member did not oppose the basic proposition that Canada move to the metric system. Indeed, 1 see he nods his head in the affirmative. I find it somewhat strange that we have had raised in this debate the question of the attitude of farmers to this over-all issue. In a way, Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that changing measurements is difficult in terms of the transition period. Nevertheless, I believe most members of the House agree that this is a transitional period that we must go through and which we must try to make as free of pain as possible. This is why I have indicated that I will be asking the Canadian Wheat Board, if we take other steps in relation to other institutions, to maintain the familiar measurement alongside the hectare and kilogram measurements so that farmers will have it before them. Going straightforwardly into the metric system and eliminating the other measurements would have been too harsh and difficult for the broad section of the public to accept, the public in this case being the farmers particularly throughout the prairie region. With this assurance we really meet the need which the hon. member cites for having those farmers who will not want to learn the new system continue with their old calculations, using the system with which they are familiar.
Metric System
It is a little ironic, I think, that we are having this debate regarding the concern of "going metric" in Canada. I think when we found it desirable to move in that direction we came to a rather non-partisan conclusion. I believe that whatever the political party, the government would have come to the same conclusion at that particular time and proceeded roughly along the lines of our own program.
What we have done with the Metric Commission is to seek the co-operation of the various people involved in dealing with goods and products moving into the metric system. In this particular case the various organizations to which the hon. member referred co-operated very well-and they do represent a great spectrum of opinion. I am astonished that the hon. member did not recognize that with the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool and other wheat pools represented at a gathering there is representation of the views of farmers even if the actual individuals who speak are not farmers themselves. The pools throughout the prairies and the United Grain Growers are among the most useful and representative groups of grain farmers in the prairie provinces. They reached the conclusion that they could, and should, go to the metric system on February 1, 1977, a date which we now, regrettably, have passed. They have suffered some inconvenience with the passing of that date, and therefore I hope we can end their period of uncertainty as quickly as possible by allowing this bill to move to the Senate and become law. In this way we will allow the change-over to the new system to occur. Everyone is geared up for that in terms of materials and the like, and therefore we should now go forward rapidly. As I say, any party in government would likely have reached the same decision.
The hon. member said that farmers in a gathering he witnessed expressed their unhappiness with metric conversion, or at least with the steps we were taking. I think it is incumbent upon us, as politicians, of whatever party to continue in these circumstances the difficult job of explaining the reason Canada is going metric, a move which I understand is embraced by all sides and which assuredly we are trying to make as painless as possible. I do not think we should leave at large the feeling that somehow we could have avoided this change.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the United States is also going metric. It is doing so in a different way, without as much coherent action, as it were; but more and more industry by industry is going metric. Therefore, it is merely a matter of time before the conversion is complete. In this particular case there is no reason for us to wait for the United States. The dealings we have with the United States on these particular matters, at least so far as grain is concerned, are largely already in metric measurement on an international basis where volumes are large.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I hope the farmers will see the availability of these two measures as something which will allow them, without fear of the metric system, to become familiar with these new terms over a period of time. I think it is a good thing that it is the grain industry, particularly the

March 25, 1977
Metric System
western Canadian grain industry, which has been able to come to this kind of agreement to go metric and to pick a date and agree to work toward it. I think we should now co-operate by allowing this matter to come to a vote.
The hon. member for Moose Jaw referred to a variety of motions. I think he even said that in one public debate he had on land measurement, after a long discussion a motion was tabled. He seemed to take that as some sort of approval, though it seemed to me to be a sign of increased understanding of the complexity of the issue involved. I hope that with the assurance that we will continue to use familiar measurements as well as the new ones, the hon. member will agree that we really ought to have the one technical legal standard in our law, and therefore that we should pass the bill as it is. But, in any case, I hope he will agree that we move rapidly to a decision so that the period of uncertainty about when the changeover will occur will come to an end.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to speak very briefly on this matter. Perhaps I might open by asking a few questions of the minister which he could respond to at some other time. First of all, I welcome what he said about retaining some of the aspects of the old system; 1 know the farmers will appreciate that. Perhaps he could elaborate on what he means by retaining parts of the old system so the farmers will not be confused. Does this mean that the farmers would still have five or ten bushel quotas, for example, instead of moving on to the metric measurement? What sectors of the grain trade will still use the old system of measurement? Perhaps the minister would respond to that general question now before I make a few remarks, if I have your permission, Mr. Speaker.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the plan is that the Wheat Board will call quotas in metric terms, such as kilograms per hectare, but there will be an accompanying translation in terms of bushels per acre so that the farmers will have both measurements. However, for operational purposes kilograms per hectare will be the term used by elevator managers.


Douglas Charles Neil: For how many years?


Otto Emil Lang: As far as I am concerned, that should go on for as long as it is seen to be needed by the farmers. If it comes to the time when the farmers agree that it is no longer necessary, then it should be terminated.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom).


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the minister recognizes that farmers were quite concerned about conversion to the metric system. I am not sure why the minister will not accept some of these amendments. It may be a technical debate at this point, and not an important one. The arguments made by the minister in charge of the Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) are going in the right direction, and I appreciate that. The hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) pretty well summarized the point of

view I am hearing from farmers in my riding. That is pretty well an accurate reflection; it is the universal view. I do not think it is a political question; it is a genuine concern of ordinary farmers who are out there.


An hon. Member:: Absolutely.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Whenever something like this comes up in the future, a bill that affects ordinary people in such a genuine way in their everyday lives, we, as parliamentarians, should make sure that we are out there with the ordinary people letting them offer us their point of view. There is a genuine feeling by farmers that they were not consulted; they were not consulted thoroughly enough by some of the farm organizations; they were not consulted thoroughly enough by parliament; they were not consulted thoroughly enough by the government or by the minister involved. The minister may argue that point. Perhaps there is some merit in arguing it, but that is the feeling of the farmers to whom I have spoken. I have spoken to enough of them to reflect their general opinion.
It is not one political party versus another. The feeling in the farm communities is probably summarized best by SUMA and the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities when they appeared before the committee. Those two organizations are, like the wheat pools, and so on, very much in touch with and very much plugged into the reality of life on the prairies.
If there were more consultation with ordinary people, when we bring in something which affects them in a genuine way you would have less cynicism of ordinary people toward governments, toward parliament and toward politicians in general. Hopefully, we can learn from this. The next time the government brings in a bill that affects people in such a genuine, basic way, I hope we can make sure there is more consultation. The hon. member for Moose Jaw hit the nail on the head when he said that people are concerned about it. I have spoken to very few farmers who are not concerned about it.
As the hon. member for Moose Jaw also said, most farmers, particularly the younger ones, realize that the metric system, in principle, is the best system. It is the simplest system in principle. It will become, very shortly, an even more international system of measurement. The minister in charge of the Wheat Board is right when he says the United States is also moving in the same direction. The day will come when they will "go metric" as well. It is obvious that we in this country should be part of that international metric system, where we have a universal system around the world that is used by all cultures, societies and the like. I think farmers recognize that. Farmers want the chance to convert to the system slowly over the years where you use the dual system. That is only right. That is the only natural thing to do. Certainly, that is the type of representation I have been getting as I travel frequently throughout the rural parts of my riding.
Farmers do not see any direct financial benefit by converting to the metric system. They do not see the need of it now, because of the position the United States is taking. I support the principle and the direction of these amendments. I appreciate the instructions the minister in charge of the Wheat Board
March 25, 1977

has sent out to the Wheat Board. I think farmers will appreciate that. The farm community is pretty well unanimous on this point. Hopefully, we can agree to support the amendments that are before the House. If we do that farmers will benefit more than from what the minister said.


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, at this stage of the debate on Bill C-23 to facilitate conversion to the metric system of measurement, 1 should like to make one comment pn that change in the calculation system imposed on our country.
I am not against that change since Canada is simply falling in line with most countries in the world. However, that change is a hindrance to many people who have to go along with it. One could think that the change is long overdue. It would indeed have cost less, because that new way of calculating, so necessary to the development of our science, economy and international trade, comes at a time when it is most expensive.
So far, our political system found it difficult to consider any change in that area. We were afraid to damage our national heritage, while China has been using that system for decades, and so have the U.S.S.R., Latin America and eastern Europe countries. We in Canada kept that system and in spite of the intervention of scientific circles advocating that change, we persisted in hanging on to what we want to get rid of today. It is only after numerous interventions and a more realistic view taken by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and thousands of employees that the government has deemed it necessary to act. We can only agree with that but we find it is a little late. The consequence of that late gesture is costlier.
In that sense, the government carries a responsibility which should not be unloaded on farmers and workers who must purchase new parts to meet the new standard. Besides, technicians such as Nestle (Canada) Ltd. Projects Division Director Dick Cannon felt thirty years ago that conversion to the metric system was an excellent idea. Already in 1945 some businessmen realized that there were some benefits to that conversion.
The delay of the government in switching to the metric system was in many respects prejudicial to the Canadian people. I understand the concern of the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) when it comes to measurements and hectares. I think that his amendment is confusing and would somehow perpetuate the former policy-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock later this day.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, before recess at one o'clock, I was saying that the amendment moved by my hon. friend from Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) would be confusing, that it would have
Metric System
the effect of perpetuating to a certain extent the practice of the old system. Therefore I think that the government of Canada should normally take over part of the cost. Of course, it is difficult to ask the government to grant subsidies to help the citizens obtain new tools with international markings.
I feel, however, that it would be legitimate for the government to provide benefits to specialists who must purchase new pieces of equipment. Why not allow the people who must incur these expenses to list them as deductible expenses for income tax purposes, provided they can file acceptable evidence that they were for replacement only? The government would thereby demonstrate not only its good will towards Canadian workers and farmers who must abide by these new standards which this government has set on its own, but would also facilitate the desirable change. Someone may argue that the government does not have to get involved, but it is nevertheless the government which has ordered this change, a necessary one indeed if we are to adhere to the world standards but for which the government has the moral obligation to assume the costs.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, in nearly 20 years of being around the House I have never witnessed a more alarming and shocking thing than I have witnessed here today. The issue is very simple. It is no longer a matter of conversion to the metric system; it is a matter of how, in a democratic system, we represent our people. We are dealing today with a series of amendments to Bill C-23. I have nothing against the metric system, but I suggest a more humane method of putting it into effect in order to allow the people to adjust without too much hardship in terms of time or money; that is all.
Evidence was given to us in the committee by representatives of grain companies, the National Farmers Union, union spokesmen for elevator men in the west, consumers, and so on. We heard from those who have a vested interest, and by that I mean those who will lose or make money out of the idea. The government says it wants metric conversion as it is laid down in this bill, and the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) said flatly this morning-and there has been no contradiction of his statement-that the great majority of the people affected by this legislation have expressed opposition to it. We in this House are saying that since the metric system is a better system than the imperial system, parliament arbitrarily should ram it down the throats of our people without even listening to their protests and arguments.
I do not use that expression very often. In all the years I have been here it has never been clearer to me than it is now that on the very fundamentals of how we serve our people we are alienating them from the institution of parliament. All we hear in the media today is that Quebec has a problem, or that western Canada has a problem, but we know that in every part of Canada and in every segment of our population people are showing signs of distress-"alienation" is the big word for it-

March 25, 1977
Metric System
over how their institutions are looking after them. They feel they no longer have any say.
I have always supported the concept that sooner or later we should change to the metric system because it is more convenient and better arithmetically, but never have I advocated something which, even though better for us in the long run, would do harm to our people now without making that suggestion as humanely as possible.
The amendments moved by the hon. member for Moose Jaw simply provide a method of moving less quickly into the metric system. We are trying to rush conversion through without the consent of the people, and arousing their animosities because of the cost and inconvenience of adopting a new system. We are arousing their deeper instinct that they are being overrun by their own legislators. That latter fear is a deep great one in Canada. We are going against all the rules of democratic procedures, because the evidence is very clear that 95 per cent to 97 per cent of the rank and file of farm organizations are against what is happening here. But the minister states that we have to accept the word of the executives of grain companies. That is the issue.
I do not believe we have to call a referendum on this subject, although that is proposed in many letters which I have. I think that the common sense of hon. members in this chamber should be such that we should do what is most acceptable. It is very clear to every hon. member of this House, whether on the government side or on this side, that the people directly affected-in this case, mostly the farmers of western Canada but also the consumers of Canada-have expressed in the only way they know, by official resolutions passed by their organizations and letters to their members of parliament, that they are opposed. I do not think the members of this chamber should say "To heck with them. We are going to ram it through". That is the essence of the reason I am supporting the amendments moved by the hon. member for Moose Jaw which simply propose that we use both measurements.
The Canadian Wheat Board, always aware of the fact that it is held responsible for its behaviour by farmers, recognized this immediately and accepted the proposal. The minister has expressed in the House that the Canadian Wheat Board is going to use both systems on its forms. So here we have one so-called institution of this parliament saying that in spite of this legislation it is going to allow all wheat farmers to use both systems on their forms. When we pass this legislation, as the government wishes us to do, I question whether the Canadian Wheat Board will be acting within the law because the law will provide that only one system be used. However, because the Canadian Wheat Board is an independent board I suppose it will ignore the law because it has the support of the minister.
Under this legislation, only the metric system is to be used. The minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board argued today that this does not affect land measurement. Such errant nonsense as that statement rarely comes into this House. The federal Metric Commission went to the provinces and said that this is the law at the federal level and the

provinces should harmonize their legislation with that law. The provinces were conned into believing that this was the law and that this parliament had passed it. But that was not the case. Before metric conversion is complete, 90 statutes of this parliament will have to be amended. The bill before us proposes amending nine of those 90, so I suggest the statement that the provincial governments have responsibility for land measurement begs the question. If the Metric Commission told the provincial governments that that was the law, and that the provinces would have to pass laws to harmonize with it, the federal government would have to accept responsibility for that.
Metric conversion, as it applies to land measurement, will have serious repercussions. When people in the cities of Saskatchewan have their lots measured, they will have to get them accurately surveyed in the metric system before they can be registered at the land titles office. That means money for lawyers and money for surveyors. As everyone knows, our roads system is based on the mile; our land measurements are based on the mile. The British democracy allows its people to keep the mile, but apparently in Canada we are not going to have that right because the public service bureaucracy has decided to confuse us.
The federal bureaucracy, working in harmony with the bureaucracies of the provinces, has decided that the metric system must be rammed down our throats immediately. The essence of the issue is bringing the metric system to North America and Australia which are the only remaining parts of the world which do not use the metric system. It can be done quickly, as it was done in Australia, or it can be done gradually as it is being done in Great Britain and in the United States.
I would like to bring to the attention of this House the comparison which exists between the democractic country of the United States and the once democractic country of Canada.
I have here a letter from the Committee on Science and Technology of the United States House of Representatives describing how metric conversion will work in that country. The hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), to whom the letter is addressed, has referred to it already in this House so I will just read the relevant paragraph. The letter is signed by a member of the Congress, Don Fuqua, and the relevant paragraph reads as follows:
The first and perhaps most important aspect of the American law is that no one will be asked to change to the metric system unless it is done voluntarily. The Act specifically provides that the United States Metric Board "shall have no compulsory powers."
The matter of land measurements was specifically discussed in our committee hearings. Land measurement was frequently given as an example where there would be very little advantage to be gained from making the changeover and where the costs of doing so would be entirely out of proportion to any possible gains. It was also noted that in the State of Louisiana land measurements continue to be made in the old French measurements, a leftover from the days when France colonized that part of the continent. The same applies to Spanish land measurements in California. In neither of these cases has it been found
March 25, 1977

advantageous to switch to the English system in the past, and there are not now any plans to switch those measurements or any land measurements elsewhere in the United States to metric measurements.
If, in changing over to the metric system, the United States wants to do it slowly and on a voluntary basis, and if Australia wants to ram it through, then which example should Canada follow? I contend we should support the amendments before us as moderate, positive proposals put forward by the official opposition. In a democratic country where the people have made it clear where they stand, these things should be done in the way that would cause least hardship. These amendments simply call for a permissive or dual system. The minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board should speak for the farmers of the west and support our proposals instead of saying what he did this morning. The minister knows that he has not been correctly informed, either by his officials or by the people who gave evidence before the standing committee. I know the seriousness of the charge I now make, Mr. Speaker.
It is disgraceful that organizations such as the Saskatchewan Pool and the Manitoba Pool, which call themselves democratic, should be pressuring the government to pass a law at this time which is to their financial advantage and is not in the interests of their members. The membership has never been given a chance to express its views on this subject.
At meetings at the local committee level, the subdistrict level and district level, resolutions have been passed and sent to the head office. Having these in his possession the secretary of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool had the colossal effrontery to write to the minister saying that in the years 1974, 1975 and 1976 no resolutions were passed by any of the 800 committees in Saskatchewan. This left the impression that all committees were in favour of the pool's stand when at that time he had in his possession official, signed resolutions from six separate areas in Saskatchewan, which represents a large proportion of the people in the province, to the contrary. We cannot do anything about this sort of thing here in parliament; it is up to members of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool to deal with the people they elect, and it is up to the elected officials to deal with those they appoint and pay. I think it is a shame that in a so-called democratic system like Saskatchewan this type of thing is going on.
I have many letters here, Mr. Speaker, but one really hits me hard. It is on the stationery of the Manitoba Pool Elevators, signed by the general manager, and addressed to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). It urges the government to bring metric conversion into effect rapidly. One paragraph reads as follows:
If the conversion to metric tonnes does not take place quickly we fear it will be impossible to generate any enthusiasm for implementation at a later date because there will always be a danger that instructions will again be changed.
What does that mean, Mr. Speaker? They realize that once the farmers know they will be given a chance to decide this thing, they will not accept it. This type of attitude toward their own members is something that the Manitoba Pool organization and the Saskatchewan Pool organization will have to settle. It is not our task to interfere. We can point out, as we have done, that it is almost a question of privilege for this
Metric System
House when this type of information is sent to a minister and a Prime Minister. As a member from Saskatchewan I am quite willing to fight this issue throughout the province. I know how it will go because members of all organizations in Saskatchewan hate to be pushed around, by their own organization or by this parliament.
In these amendments we are specifically concerned with five bills that deal with the handling of grain in the west. I appeal to members of all political persuasions in this House to put democracy in the forefront of their decision-making. If civil servants are trying to push something through just because Australia has done it that way, they should be fired and told who is boss. If farm organizations and grain companies apply political pressure, they should be told that it is the rank and file who have the power and they will be listened to. I urge members to speak as parliamentarians. This is not a question of conscience; it is a question of moral judgment. Is it right to ignore the expressed wishes of the rank and file affected by this legislation? I am talking now about the western farmer who is the person concerned in the amendment before us.
I appeal also to my friends from Quebec. The land system in Quebec is not measured in acres, it is in arpents. When the time comes when they try to force farmers to change from arpents to hectares, there will be a battle. The whole trouble started in Ottawa when they tried to persuade Quebec to adopt metric conversion on a crash basis.
The question is simply whether we crash this thing through without any regard for the people affected, or whether we give them an alternative system to follow until they get used to the new system.
At the beginning of second reading debate I suggested that if the word "hectares" were removed from the bill we would pass it that afternoon and help persuade farmers that, if they accepted tonnes, we would protect them against change in land measurements. I thought the government had reacted favourably to that, and that is why we let the debate drop and the bill go to committee. But the minister came to committee and repudiated what I thought was an understanding. Apparently the civil servants felt that it would confuse Canadians to have two systems simultaneously. They have two systems in the United States; they have them in Great Britain. Are we stupid? Can we not get along with two systems?
[DOT] (M30)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner);: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but I must inform him that his allotted time has expired. He may continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to abuse the privilege extended to me by hon. members. They know of my deep feelings on the subject. I believe the metric system is good, but I have in my possession documents which demonstrate the truth of what I

March 25, 1977
Metric System
said about the views of farmers and consumers. Later I shall move an amendment which will ensure some protection for consumers.
1 hope my words carry weight. I say, for heaven's sake let your vote be in the interest of running this country democratically. I say to hon. members, do not let the bureaucracy push parliament around. Do not let people with vested interests claim to be the spokesmen of the people, when they are not. Let us accept the hon. member's amendments, so that we may be in harmony with what the British and American peoples have done. And, Mr. Speaker, let us do this democratically. Let there be no force or compulsion in this matter. Some people apparently think force and compulsion are necessary.


Mr. Frank Hamilton (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand why the minister in charge of the Wheat Board, after giving assurance that we can use the dual system, that is, retain bushels and acres in the grain industry, still refuses to support the amendments before the House.
It has been argued that metric conversion has grass roots support in the agricultural industry of western Canada. With respect, it never did have such grass roots support. On February 1, 1976, more than a year ago, I sent out a questionnaire which asked one simple question: are you in favour of metric conversion? Sixty-five per cent of the replies said no. I therefore say that there has never been grass roots support in the western provinces for metric conversion.
Further, some grain companies have indicated to the government that they speak for the rank and file. I say this is just not so, and will quote two letters to back my statement. The first letter dated February 9, 1977, reads:
Dear Sir,
At a recent meeting of Saskatchewan Wheat Pool delegates the discussion of metric conversion involving the grain industry, particularly land measurement, arose.
Whereas we understand that there is a possibility that the acre could be changed to hectares, we are opposed. We feel that it would be impractical to change the acre, as land is surveyed in acres and does not coincide or convert equally into any metric form. We also feel that there would be no useful purpose in changing as grain could still be sold in tonnes or kilos per acre rather than per hectare.
Therefore, be it resolved that the land area measurement be kept as acres. A reply would be appreciated.
It is signed by the secretary of the District 3 delegates of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool.
May I also quote the letter of the Robsart Wheat Pool Committee of Saskatchewan, dated February 9, 1977. It reads:
... The Robsart Wheat Pool Committee held a committee meeting in the elevator office on the evening of February 8, with our delegates ...
A good discussion was had in regards to the metric system and the conversion consequences. It was generally agreed that the metric conversion is not going to be readily accepted by farmers and that the measurements by bushels and acres should be retained. The committee felt that it was absolutely absurd to resurvey the land for hectares. After all, that would not change the actual quarters or sections and it would certainly cost the country millions of dollars. That isn't necessary.

Resolution-Moved . . . seconded .. . that the metric system does not convert to tonnes or hectares in the agricultural sector for the many reasons as stated above. Carried.
The letter is signed by Howard Olson, secretary of the Robsart Wheat Pool Committee.
For all these and other reasons, I intend to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Moose Jaw.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The question, first, is on motion No. 1. I understand that when the Chair puts the question on motion No. 1, it will at the same time be putting the question on motions Nos. 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8. is that understood and agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Hon. members have heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order please. Pursuant to the order made Thursday, March 24, 1977, the recorded division on the proposed motions stands deferred until Monday next.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: motion No. 3:
That Bill C-23, an act to facilitate conversion to the metric system of measurement, be amended in clause 3 at page 2 by adding immediately after line 12 the following new subclause:
"(3) This section shall come into force on the first day of March 1980."
He said: Mr. Speaker, the motion just moved in my name was proposed in the standing committee by the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth (Mr. Kempling). I point out that motion No. 3 has little to do with the Wheat Board. If passed it would affect all consumers across Canada. It seeks to amend clause 3, which mentions the Packaging and Labelling Act,
March 25, 1977

and the Weights and Measures Act. Clearly this matter is of concern to all consumers in Canada.
At present it is legal and proper to print on a package or label both the imperial and the metric measure of the contents of the package. For example, almost every person in every household in Canada has been to a store to buy a half gallon carboard carton of milk. The language on two sides is French, and on two sides English. At the bottom of the carton you see the expression, "one half gallon", and beside it the figure of "2.27 litres". If people prefer their measurements in litres they know exactly how much they are getting, 2.27 litres. Similarly those used to the imperial measurement know they are getting a half gallon. But the legislation now before the House would make it illegal to measure milk by the half gallon. You will be able to use only the 2.27 litres measurement. Manufacturers will be able to round off the numbers, to make the measurement either 2 litres or 4 litres.
You will never again see units of imperial measurement on any package in Canada. That is what clause 3 will do. Some of us do not like that kind of doctrinaire, dictatorial approach. We think that people used to the half gallon measurement will be confused. Why should that volume be measured only as 2.27 litres? You can bet your bottom dollar that no manufacturer who has millions of dollars worth of these little cardboard cartons stacked up in his warehouse will burn them and put out a new carton for two litres. He will use the old cartons. When you get a new carton, it will be 2.27 litres.
I am simply putting forward in a very simple way what this clause does. A farmer buying feed for his chickens used to buy it in 50 pound containers. Now it will be in some other measure, 25 kilograms I think it is. The equivalent is not the same, so it will lead to confusion. For years turkey and chicken farmers have bought feed in 50 pound bags. Now they will see pasted over the side a great strip which states so many kilograms.
One farmer who was always a bit cautious picked up a bag. He had been picking up bags for years. He put it on the scale because it looked the same as the old size bag he had always bought. Instead of having a 50 pound figure on it, it indicated so many kilograms. He weighed the bag and what did he find? Did he find 56 pounds which should be in there because that is equal to the number of kilograms and he has learned to multiply by 2.2? He finds the same 50 pounds of chicken feed but he is charged for 55 or 56 pounds. This is what happens during the switchover.
No manufacturer of bags for chicken feed will change the size of the bag because some government comes along and says he must use only the metric system. He just pastes a little strip on the outside and puts on it the metric measurement. However, he does not change the quantity in the bag.
The merchant in the store tells the farmer that he has so many kilograms. If it turns out to be 25 kilograms or something like that and the farmer protests he is not getting the right amount, the only thing I can do when I receive a letter
Metric System
from him is to turn that over to the Department of Consumer Affairs and ask that it be checked out. They will have to hire an army of inspectors as big as the civil service in order to track down all these complaints across the country.
In essence, what the amendment says is that you wait a little while before you enforce this amendment. The date suggested is 1980. It states that clause 3 on page 2 be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:
(3) This section shall come into force on the first day of March 1980.
Why 1980? If you look through all this literature, that is about the date the Americans and their industry will be moving in that direction. You give the consumer, every store and every plant in Canada three years to get used to the new terms such as kilograms, grams and so on.
This is a moderate constructive amendment. It was asked for by the Consumers Association of Canada. I cannot say they asked all of their people where they stand on this so I do not know how the consumers do stand. However, the association which made this presentation to the committee said this is what they would like, that it would give some time to get used to it. It fits in with the philosophy I mentioned on second reading debate.
Please, as we bring this metric system in, make it as humane as possible. There are those whose eyesight is not good enough to read what is on a package, but they are used to a size. Even though their eyes are not good, they can recognize a half gallon container. However, if they have to read 2.27 litres, they may not be able to make that out. I simply say on behalf of those who have poor eyesight, be humane and let them have a familiar size package, which will be continued anyway. Do not force them to accept the newer size package too quickly.
Second, there are those who have difficulty in translating from one type of system to another. I know that for the smart guys of the world, when they see a package of 400 grams, it is easy for them. They know that 400 grams is four tenths of a kilogram and a kilogram is 2.2 pounds so four tenths of 2.2 pounds is .88 of a pound, something less than a pound. With this skill to translate, you know that when you see 400 grams, it is something less than a pound. However, there may be a few people in Canada who will have trouble with that conversion.
All this amendment asks is to please let the thing go as it is now with both on the package. I do not buy small things which are packaged in millilitres or smaller units than the gram, but I suggest this type of amendment would not hurt the conversion to the metric system one bit. Simply let the packaging continue as it is today with both measurements. We insist that French and English be on the package. Why not let the imperial system stay there along with the metric system for three years? That is the heart and gist of this amendment.
I do not know how many consumers there are in Canada. There are 23 million people and they are probably all consumers. I suppose about one quarter of them do the shopping. On behalf of the five million people who do the shopping, whether they are male or female, I ask the House to accept this amendment which in no way interferes with conversion to the

March 25, 1977
Metric System
metric system. Let us have the two units on the package until the year 1980. Is that too much to ask on behalf of all the consumers? I do not think so.
I suspect, however, that the government whip has been laid on. These members have been told that if they accept this amendment, they will be in trouble with civil servants who do not like any deviation from the norm. I ask hon. members once again, stand up as individuals representing the people of your constituencies and express your will. I want to see the names in the recorded votes of Hansard so that people will know how they vote on this issue on behalf of the consumers of Canada.
I want to know whether the people who call themselves the members of the government, living in a free society, are prepared to go back in and say they do not give a hoot what you think, it is what we think that counts. I want to know because this whole issue has not developed as a debate on whether to convert to the metric system. It has developed into a clear cut example of the bureaucracy running governments at both the federal and provincial levels and members not being man enough or woman enough to stand up against it.
I would like to see this amendment accepted with good heart. All it asks is that we give the consumer three years to adjust as a measure of humanity toward our fellow man.


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few brief remarks with respect to this amendment. In committee we had the privilege of hearing representations from the Consumers Association of Canada. Their presentation was very straightforward. Part of it was an audio-visual presentation. They brought with them packages of certain goods and pointed out the problems that will occur if this piece of legislation passes. Just as an example they showed three packages, one of four ounces, one of eight ounces and one of 16 ounces and they showed that until such time as there was a standardization of containers or packaging, these particular packages would read 114 millilitres, 227 millilitres and 455 millilitres, or 113 grams, 227 grams and 454 grams. They were pointing out to the committee that it would be very difficult for a consumer going into a store where there was labelling only under the metric system and where there were not any even numbers, to do the necessary calculations. As they said, when you have four ounce, eight ounce and 16 ounce packages it is only a matter of doubling the price to see which is the best bargain, but when dealing with millilitres or grams it is almost impossible to make the calculation unless you have a pencil and paper or a pocket calculator. I would suspect that if and when this bill becomes law in its present form the calculator industry is really going to boom. Indeed, it might be advisable to buy shares in some of the companies which produce calculators because every farmer and every consumer will have to carry a calculator around in his pocket to do the necessary calculations. Something of that sort will be needed in order to determine the relationship between prices of goods and quantity he is buying, or the quantity of chemicals he must put on his land.

It is interesting to note what the Consumers Association of Canada have been saying on this subject. I would like to read a couple of paragraphs from the Association's presentation. Let me make it clear that the Consumers Association is not opposed to metrication but it is opposed to this particular clause which will, overnight, require labelling under the metric system only. This is what the Association said in committee:
CAC is entirely in favour of single metric labelling of grocery products but only when the industry has adopted a rationalized series of hard metric sizes ... We feel very strongly that metric-only should occur when a product has moved into a standard metric size. It has been proven in other countries that the consumer relies on the old size and does not look at the new, if the change has been made, so there is no learning process. But we are against having the single metric-only for products which have not experienced conversion to metric.
Then they go on to say:
It is the position of the Association that removal of dual labelling requirements from the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act, as envisaged in clause three of this bill, with the result that any manufacturer will be able to label any size of grocery product in metric only, is premature and can only lead to confusion and consumer abuses in the marketplace.
Representatives of the Consumers Association were in attendance before the committee when the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth (Mr. Kempling) presented this amendment which has the effect of requiring dual labelling until 1980. They agreed with the amendment. They said it was the type of amendment they wanted, because by 1980 packages would have been standardized. It was interesting to observe what happened in that committee. Government members sat back while the witnesses were in attendance and when the amendment was discussed. What did they say? They said, when it came to the amendment which dealt with acres and hectares, that they could not accept it because the farm organizations had come before the committee, stating that they represented the farmers of Western Canada, and that those farmers wanted to go metric. On that basis they turned down our amendment. The suggestion was that we, in the opposition, did not understand what the people of Western Canada wanted.
What happened when the representatives of the Consumers Association came before the committee? In the same way, they said they represented consumers-I think they said they represented 100,000 consumers across Canada. That is a large number. But what was the reaction of hon. members on the government side? They said, in effect: We are not going to believe the representatives of the consumers of Canada and we shall not accept the amendment. So on one hand there is a situation in which government members believed members of associations, which said they represented farmers and on the other hand a situation where apparently they did not believe an association which represents a very large number of Canadian consumers.


An hon. Member:: That is not what happened at all.


Douglas Charles Neil: It seems to me that this amendment, which has the effect of delaying the institution of the metric system as far as the labelling of goods is concerned until 1980, is what the Consumers Association wants and that it is what the majority
March 25, 1977

of Canadians want. Otherwise, there is going to be confusion. In effect, it will be necessary for people to use a pencil and paper or a calculator, and if that situation develops there is something wrong with our legislation, something wrong with our government.
1 have nothing more to say except to urge the minister to give consideration to this amendment and to the other amendments which have been presented, between now and the time they come up to be voted on on Monday. He will have the weekend in which to do so. He will have an opportunity to talk to some of his own members, in particular, perhaps, to members from Western Canada. He will be able to make a few telephone calls. Possibly he will telephone some of the farm organizations, the Consumers organization and other bodies to see what their attitude is. I am sure the minister wants to do an honest and sincere job for the people of Canada whether they are consumers or men and women engaged in the farm area and I hope that when it comes to the vote on Monday he will have persuaded members on the government side to vote in favour of this amendment.


Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, it certainly gives me pleasure to speak on this motion for the simple reason that I represent an area of Canada where there is very little newspaper coverage, very little television coverage, very little radio coverage, and the people of this area have really not been kept up to date as to what is happening with metric conversion.
With regard to weather conditions, people seemed to manage quite well over the past hundred years or so, being able to determine the temperature or the weather by using the Fahrenheit system. But now that we have gone to the metric system and all the reports are given in that system no one knows what the weather is going to be like.
With regard to labelling produce in a certain type of container with both metric and conventional measurement, this will be confusing to people in the north. This is particularly so when the price of articles in expensive; people will not know whether they are being ripped off by the merchant. I think the people in the north are just not ready for this. Not enough education has been given these people on this measure, and it will only confuse them. Therefore when we vote on this motion on Monday I hope it will be carried. We must think of those who are not exposed to the media in the same way as those who live in the great corridor between Montreal and Windsor.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation whatever in supporting this motion to delay this move until 1980.


George H. Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, on rising to speak to this motion on metric conversion may I say at the outset that I do so more from confusion than anything else. Metric conversion is new to many people in Canada, and I am not ashamed or afraid to say that I will experience a totally new learning process myself. I am not alone in this; I believe a large percentage of the population are in the same position.
Metric System
Clause 3 provides for metric labelling, and our party has moved a motion to provide that we go slow on this until 1980. In other words, we will then have some length of time to undergo the learning process which many of us will have to go through.
I am sure most members of the House know that we have a lot in common with the United States so far as imports and exports are concerned. However, it appears to me that the situation concerning metric labelling will be similar to that of bilingual labelling. We do not know exactly when the act is going to be proclaimed, or whether only certain sections at a time will be proclaimed. The United States has not yet seen fit to convert to the metric system but has adopted a go slow attitude. The Americans have moved much more slowly than we have in Canada.


Mr. Breau:: Should we tell them what to do?


George H. Whittaker: I hear an intervention from my hon. friend, who asks whether we should tell the United States what to do. He knows that we have a great amount of trade with the United States, and I am not sure whether the section of the bilingual labelling act having to do with the labelling of imports into Canada has yet been proclaimed. I know that companies in Canada, at great cost to many, have been badgered into putting bilingual labels on their products. If products are being imported into Canada with unilingual labels on them, this means the exporter has not been put to the same cost, so this provision is an unnatural tariff which gives a trade advantage to American companies.


Herb Breau: One hundred per cent?


George H. Whittaker: Would the hon. member like to listen for a moment? We are having a hard enough time in Canada today, what with unemployment, and with helping businesses in Canada get started. There are all kinds of trade barriers. There is no free trade or fair trade; instead we have unfair trade barriers between our two countries. This government does not hesitate and never has hesitated to put this type of barrier in the way of Canadian producers, businesses, and enterprises, giving trade advantages to competitors of Canadian companies abroad.
The same thing happens to our exporters. So far as the lumber industry in British Columbia is concerned, 62 per cent of our exports go to the United States. The lumber mills are not going to be able to put metric labels on their exports to the United States; they must label the product using the measurements used in the United States. Nevertheless, many companies in Canada will be required to put a dual label on their exports. One of the organizations I was very close to or was part of-indeed I still am-is the fruit industry of British Columbia. We sell a lot of our produce in the United States, and I think it is in the best interests of Canada that we continue to export our produce. The same is true of the lumber industry in British Columbia. This generates export dollars for Canada.
4362

March 25, 1977
Metric System
We import enough produce from the United States as it is now. The balance of trade in fruit and farm produce is almost equal; we maintain an equal balance over-all mainly because of our wheat exports. I did not think we will have to label every kernel of grain or boxcar of wheat, but owing to their size the containers in which produce is exported from Canada will have to be labelled.
Imports are still coming into Canada without a bilingual label. As I have said, businesses in Canada have been badgered, bullied, or whatever you want to call it, into putting bilingual labels on their products, in many instances at high cost. This puts them at a trade disadvantage compared with other imports which are not labelled bilingually. I can see metric labelling going down the same path. There will be all kinds of confusion as to how you label your product according to where it is going to or coming from. The whole thing will be confused. It will be a dog's breakfast. That is exactly what it will be.
We are offering an amendment to postpone this until 1980. No wonder the Consumers Association of Canada has taken a hard look at this. No wonder many of the manufacturers and business interests and producers in Canada have taken a hard look at this and have said they are against this sort of thing happening at a great cost to the people of Canada and at a disadvantage to them as far as trading is concerned.


Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to delay the proceedings on this very much. I would like to speak for about two minutes. The rapid march to the metric system appears to me to be out of step, unless it coincides with changes contemplated by our largest trading partner and our greatest supplier of imports, the United States of America. I suggest the hon. member's amendment will go a long way in assisting us in this regard. I want to speak just for a moment in support of it.
I am concerned about the great cooking recipes of all times. I am referring to the ones that came down to us from our grandmothers. There are very few among us who can translate them from ounces, cups, pinches and tablespoons to such enlightening things as litres, millilitres, and cubic centimetres. The result will not be as tasty. A cherry nut bread, a banana bread, or an apple pan dowdy will never be the same. One lady whom I have respected all my life said to me, "Why can't the government just leave us alone? They have changed our old traditions. They have watched our work ethic erode. Now they are imposing chaos for seniors in the market place."
I am not sure that it should happen, but if it must happen I strongly urge the House to do it in step with our American neighbours. I am very much concerned about the great seafood dishes from down east where I come from in Atlantic Canada. What will the metric system do to them? Who can translate those recipes into metric terms? I suggest that it is darn near impossible. I would like to see us move as slowly as we possibly can on this piece of legislation.

I have been concerned, as I am sure all members have, with the customs and the traditions of our law-shaping forces. As time moves on and our legislation becomes more mature and our system becomes more mature, the basic law-shaping forces are much more removed from their former functions. We have witnessed the rise of bureaucracy and the fact that bureaucracy is the principal law-shaping force in our land. I have found that the Canadian people I have talked to do not want this system. I do not think they understand it. I do not think enough has been done of an explanatory nature, although a great deal of money has been spent in this field. I find people asking themselves, "How do we participate in this democracy now?" Members of parliament are in Ottawa for nine months of the year. How do the average Canadians let us know they do not like this, and what they would like instead of it?
We should address ourselves to this question of participation. This is a darn good example. The people do not want this legislation. However, we are here and seem prepared to pass it. We are, in effect, saying to the Canadian people, "This is good for you and you darn well better have it." I am afraid if we keep on in this direction much longer that the Canadian people are going to tell us what is good for us. Some members who vote for this and ram it down their throats are going to regret it very much.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The question is on motion No. 3 (Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain)).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Pursuant to the order made Thursday, March 24, 1977, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred until Monday, March 28, 1977.


Douglas Charles Neil: motion No. 6:
That Bill C-23, an act to facilitate conversion to the metric system of measurement, be amended in clause 6 by striking out lines 36 to 44 at page 4 and lines 1 to 25 at page 5.
March 25, 1977

He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few brief comments in connection with this amendment. Basically it is part and parcel of the previous amendments on which we have spoken. It pertains to the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act and has to do with the calculations made thereunder. Basically the remarks that I made on the motions that were grouped together apply to this particular amendment.
I would like to make a comment with respect to a remark made by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang). He seemed to indicate that I was suggesting that this particular bill would change the land title systems in the provinces of western Canada. I, at no time, ever made such a remark. I realize that the land title systems in our country are within the jurisdiction of the provincial governments. What I have said in the past, and will repeat again, is that because of this legislation which, in effect, requires the farmer to make use of hectares and tonnes, it will create a pressure and has created a pressure on the provincial governments to make changes in their land title systems. For example, in the province of Saskatchewan they made changes in April or May of last year. It is interesting to note that these changes were not made by the legislature of that province. The members of the legislative assembly in Saskatchewan did not have a chance to debate any bill. The people in the province of Saskatchewan did not have the opportunity of any input into the change.


An hon. Member:: It is the new democracy.


Douglas Charles Neil: My colleague to my right says, "It is the new democracy". It appears that is the way we are moving. The changes in the province of Saskatchewan were all made by order in council. Most people are familiar with an order in council. It is a series of regulations made either by the cabinet, or by a cabinet minister and approved by the other members of cabinet, promulgated, put in the Gazette, and it becomes law. That is an example of what happened in the province of Saskatchewan. The reason it happened was because the legislators in that province did not understand or did not know what was happening. There were some communications from the bureaucrats in Ottawa to the bureaucrats in Regina. The bureaucrats in Regina came to the conclusion that the change to the metric system was law, so they went ahead and they passed the regulations.
I am quite satisfied that if such a change in our land title system had been put before the legislature in any province, and the people in the province had the opportunity to learn what was going on, they would make their wishes known loud and clear because the people on the prairies have grown up under a system which uses acres. The west was surveyed about 100 years ago using statute miles. We have townships, we have ranges, we have sections, half sections, and quarter sections, all based on the mile. All the roads in the west that run north and south are one mile apart, and the ones that run east and west are two miles apart.
Metric System
Every farmer knows what an acre of land is. He can walk out into a field and say, "That piece of land contains X number of acres". He can tell by looking at it. He knows, when he takes his combine or his seed drill out into the field which is measured in feet, and he goes down the side of that field or makes a round around the field, how many acres he has covered. But the government, in its wisdom, will change all that. It is saying to the farmer, "From now on you will record everything in hectares and use tonnes per acre. But it will not be any problem; it is just a matter of calculation." The farmer knows how complicated the calculation will be; he knows the problems with which he will be faced. That is why he has expressed his opinion loud and clear to members of parliament. That is why local community committees of some of the farm organizations have passed resolutions saying they do not wish to convert to the metric system.
I think the farm organizations now have the message, but unfortunately that message did not get through to the government, and I do not know why because it is a simple matter to go out west, walk down the street of any town, and ask a farmer what he thinks about the metric system. He will tell you. I suggest that you can walk down the streets in any towns on the prairies, and you can spend the day talking to farmers, and I doubt if you would find one individual who is in favour of the change to the metric system, because the change is unnecessary. We do not sell land on the international markets. It will not add $1 to the farmer's income. All it will do is to create problems for him; it is a nuisance. It can create more than problems; it can cost him money because if he makes a mistake in some of his calculations when he is working with herbicides, pesticides, or even seeds, it can damage his crop.
I am pleased that a vote on these amendments will not take place until Monday, and I hope that the minister who is piloting this bill through the House-as a matter of fact it is his first bill-will sit back over the weekend and give serious thought to it. Perhaps he will talk to some of his colleagues and make a few phone calls to some of the farm organizations. If he wants to call some individuals, I can give him some telephone numbers, not necessarily of people of my political faith but of farmers who know what is happening in a community. Then he would understand what the feeling is among the farmers in western Canada. I can only hope that he will undertake to do that, and that when he comes back on Monday he will give instructions to his colleagues to support not only the amendments with respect to the western farmer, but the amendment with respect to dual labelling.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, we have tried this afternoon as clearly and as emphatically as we can to impress government members with the importance of ignoring their own whip and their own civil servants and doing what is right. We are considering an amendment which, as the preceding speaker, the hon. member for Moose Jaw, has said, is part of a package. We are now dealing with western farmers. I think I can put this into a very simple phrase again.
80010-69%

March 25, 1977
Metric System
I want to remind the committee that 200 years ago last year the Americans had a rebellion against their lawful ruler, the king and emperor of the United Kingdom. Last year in 1976 they celebrated the 200th anniversary of that rebellion against their king. The issue on which they fought at that time, if I remember it correctly, was: no taxation without representation. What we are witnessing here today is metrification without representation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: If hon. members on the government side think really hard, as the thinkers' conference in Toronto is supposed to be doing today, they will realize it is not only the farmers in the west who will be in a state of alienation and rebellion, but also consumers from one end of the country to the other.
To make certain there is no misunderstanding about what the hon. member for Moose Jaw said, and what I tried to say earlier in the debate about the feeling of the farmers, this can all be verified. There was a meeting in Lethbridge, Alberta, two weeks ago called by the Canadian Wheat Board to discuss the pricing of wheat. The minister knows what I am talking about. Farmers are concerned that mistakes are being made in the pricing policy of the Wheat Board. Questions were asked about the metric system. At that meeting 1,100 to 1,200 farmers tried to get into the hall. There is interest out there. Only 800 were allowed in because the fire marshal said that that was all the hall could accommodate safely. When the chairman asked how many of those present were in favour of the metric system, out of the 800 farmers in that hall ten hands went up. When he asked how many were opposed, 790 farmers stood to their feet. If the farmers do not understand that type of arithmetic, the government should.
In the same province of Alberta at Indus, at a meeting of the Alberta pool, part of the agenda was that there was to be a film on the metric system. Delegates from every district of Alberta said, "Take that out of here", and they took it out, because when Alberta farmers say take something out, it is taken out.
Third, farm organizations and pools are generally associated with a great part of the area I represent. The towns of Indian Head, Sintaluta and Abernethy may not mean a thing to the generation which sits in this House now, but prairie farm organizations began in this area in the territorial days. This is the area which produced Motherwell and Jimmy Gardiner. Even I was asked to run. What do the people in this historic centre of farm revolt and fighting for farm freedom say? The telegram I have in my hand is dated February 10, and it says:
We the following are members of Sask. Wheat Pool and are opposed to the metric system being brought into effect for grain and acres without farmers' agreement.
This telegram is signed by Don Woods, secretary of the wheat pool; A1 Guest, Albert Gares, Gordon Barber, E. Smithson and Alf Goodwin. These people are all from Indian Head.

It is also signed by Dave Mercer from Lemberg, Jimmy Gardiner's old home town; G. R. Pollock, Sintaluta, the home of the United Grain Growers farm movement; Richard Barnsley of Abernethy, the home of Motherwell. In a postscript the telegram says the following:
No mention was made at the pool's annual meeting regarding opposition or agreement to the metric system. I believe we have been misled in believing that it had already been made law.
I read those names because those names are known to every farmer in that big grain growing area in my constituency.
Fourth, I asked an old grain man from the southern part of my constituency along the American border to find out what the elevator men have to say. Are they all in favour of this? What did their representatives say in the committee? This is the gist of the message. This old grain man talked to the agents himself and found out that they were quite upset about executives in their organizations giving the word on what farmers should believe. The old grain man communicated the following:
Metric meeting held among the pool agents and not with farmers ...
It cannot be denied that Saskatchewan pool elevator men all along the line are against the metric system, and that someone has been misinforming the House.
A week ago I raised a question of privilege, and it was so close to privilege that the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool should have been brought before the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. I have here some official resolutions which were passed. I will give the dates, the names which appear on them and so forth, and the House should bear in mind the time frame about which I am talking. The Secretary of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool wrote a letter to the minister which I have here, and which says that during all that period no resolutions were received from the 800 active wheat pool committees, from annual meetings held, or from other membership meetings held throughout the province.
I have here these resolutions on Saskatchewan Wheat Pool stationery. The first one reads:
Re: Federal Government District-Carrot River 14-8
The following resolution was passed at the committee meeting held on February 15, 1977 ...
That was ten days before the secretary wrote his letter to the minister.
... and reported by the secretary of the committee, Mr. Peter Sirey, Box 175, Carrot River, Saskatchewan, and received in head office on February 21, 1977:
That was also before the secretary wrote his letter to the minister, and this is what the resolution says:
Be it resolved that the Carrot River committee is opposed to converting the acre to the hectare.
Carrot River is located in the northeast part of Saskatchewan. This resolution was submitted to the board of directors of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool on February 24, the day before the letter was written.
March 25, 1977

The following is on the same Saskatchewan Wheat Pool stationery. It is from district 13-2 at Burr, in the northwest part of Saskatchewan. It states:
The following resolution was passed at the committee meeting held on February 10, 1977, and reported by the secretary of the committee, Mr. Art Klassen, Burr, Saskatchewan ... and received in head office on February 15, 1977:
That was ten days before the secretary wrote to the minister. The resolution states the following:
That we keep the present system of weights and measurements.
That resolution was submitted to the board of directors on February 17, before the letter was written.
Here is one from a whole district. As hon. members probably know, Saskatchewan is divided into 14 districts under the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool Organization. Each district represents thousands of wheat pool members. This communication reads as follows:
The following resolution was passed at the delegates district meeting held on February 4 and 5, 1977, and was reported by the secretary of the district, Mr. Hugh McDonough,... Cadillac, Sask., and received in head office on February 14, 1977:
That was eleven days before the letter was sent. The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale), who is not here, knows where the town of Cadillac is. The people there will not be voting for him the next time around. This resolution reads as follows:
Whereas we understand that there is a possibility that the acre could be changed to hectares we are opposed. We feel that it would be impractical to change the acre as the land is surveyed in acres, and does not coincide or convert equally into any metric form; we also feel that there would be no useful purpose in changing the acre as grain could still be sold in tonnes or kilos per acre rather than per hectare;
Therefore be it resolved that the land area measurement be left as acres.
That was submitted to the board of directors of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool of February 16, 1977, before the secretary wrote the letter.
Here is another one from my district, District 7, Sub-district 4, Grenfell, and it reads as follows:
The following resolution was passed at the committee meeting held on February 24, 1977, and was reported by the secretary of the committee Mr. Donald Crawford, Grenfell, Saskatchewan ... and was received in head office on March 2, 1977:
Whereas there is some difficulty converting miles to kilometres, acres to hectares, and bushels to tonnes, be it resolved that the present acreage system with square miles and bushels be retained. That the railroads change to metric system at the same time as the rest of the grain trade.
This was submitted to J. O. Wright of the board on March 3. 1 will go on and read the one from Avonlea, which is right in the heart of the riding of Assiniboia. It says:
Whereas the metric conversion program is being planned and whereas this program is causing hardship to those of us unfamiliar to the program,
Therefore be it resolved that the program be slowed down until a more effective educational program can be made available.
The hon. member for Assiniboia stood up and said that the secretary of this farm organization is for it, so we all have to
Metric System
accept it. He would not even take the word of the farmers in his own district.
We ask that this conversion be slowed down a little bit. That would make it a little more humane.
Here is one from Plenty in west central Saskatchewan. It is dated February 21 and the resolution reads as follows:
Whereas we are now surveyed in acres and miles, be it resolved that we stay with acres instead of hectares and miles instead of kilometres.
I could go on, but I think I have made my point. In 1970 the government appointed a metric commission to look at the whole thing and to make recommendations to this parliament for legislation. What did the commission do? It went out across the country and told provincial governments and farm organizations that this was the law, that they should get in step, and that the federal government would bring in a bill to be debated here, and in three provinces it became law on February 1, 1977.
The hon. member for Moose Jaw told us that the Metric Commission got the Saskatchewan government to put through an order in council. The Saskatchewan government did not even tell its legislature. Some Saskatchewan cabinet ministers did not even know about it. That order in council changed the whole survey system of Saskatchewan. I have the order in council here, and it says that all surveys, and I quote:
. .. shall be drawn with metric measurements and shall be subject to the approval and inspection, as to their accuracy and the manner in which they are established on the ground, of the Chief Surveyor ...
When a person dies and his estate tries to sell the land and register the title under a new name, there will not only be legal expenses involved but survey expenses as well. The quarter sections in Saskatchewan are not measured accurately. They were measured with a buggy wheel that had a rope tied around it, and that is why our titles say "160 acres more or less." An order in council in Saskatchewan now decrees that measurements must be accurate. That will involve great cost.
I opened my remarks by saying that we are now in the age of metrification without representation. I know what those Saskatchewan farmers will do at the next election. There will be a new government in Saskatchewan. There is going to be a new government here, too.
Ontario accepted the metric system by permissive legislation. Alberta has also passed legislation but has not proclaimed it. I am simply asking members of this government to act like members of parliament instead of allowing themselves to be pushed around by bureaucrats. Stand up and support your people, I say. All we want is that the dual system be left until the farmers accept the new system willingly. We already sell grain under the metric system and there is no quarrel with that. But why make changes that are not necessary? There is no necessity to change the land measurement system, yet the government has told the provinces that it must be done. Then it comes here and blames the whole thing on the provinces.
I ask members of the government to think about what I have been saying, over this weekend. And I suggest that if they do

March 25, 1977
St. Lawrence Seaway
not think about it they will not be around many more months clouding the atmosphere with the kind of dictatorial nonsense that is contained in this bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The question is on Motion No. 6 (Mr. Neil).
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Pursuant to order made Thursday, March 24, 1977 the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred until Monday next.


An hon. Member:: Four o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is it agreed we call it four o'clock? The hon. member for Lafontaine-Rosemont (Mr. Lachance).
[ Translation]


Mr.   Claude-Andr@: Mr. Speaker, since the government, through the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), has announced its intention of undertaking a review of the financial structure of the St. Lawrence Seaway, motion No. 28 standing in my name is no longer relevant; therefore I would ask, in agreement with the seconder of the motion the hon. member for Saint-Jean (Mr. Smith), for the unanimous consent of the House to remove motion No. 28 from the order paper.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was kind enough to speak to me about that. On behalf of my party I should like to indicate our willingness. It is my understanding that there is no private members' business
available for today and the parliamentary secretary has spoken to me about that. Having regard to the position of the hands on the clock I think it might be in order to call it five o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we also agree to the request with regard to the hon. member's motion and I suspect all of us will agree to call it five o'clock. I wish there was some way we could have on the record the names of those faithful Liberals who stayed in parliament today instead of going off to that once-in- 17-years thinkers' conference.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to remind hon. members of the matter that was alluded to by Mr. Speaker this morning, the 37th anniversary of the election of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) to this House. There is a reception in the Commonwealth Room to celebrate the occasion and I am sure the right hon. gentleman would be delighted to see all the members regardless of on what side of the House they sit.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the co-operation we have received this afternoon in disposing of the business of the House. I want to say to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) however, that I would rather be in the House with him than anywhere else.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is it agreed that the hon. member for Lafontaine-Rosemont (Mr. Lachance) has unanimous consent to withdraw Private Member's Notice of Motion No. 28?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It being five o'clock this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 3.47 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, March 28, 1977