1977-01-26

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter which continues to be of urgent and pressing necessity for this House. In view of the continuing refusal of this government to investigate charges of blacklisting against senior civil servants, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House go on record as opposing the procedure apparently followed by the former Solicitor General and, further, that this government inform the 21 persons who were blacklisted, on a confidential basis, of their inclusion on such list so that they themselves, if they wish, may take appropriate action to clear themselves with their government departments so that their careers may not be jeopardized thereby.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Such motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 cannot be presented to the House for debate without its unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion dealing with a matter of pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that the price of feed grain is soaring in eastern Canada and since those increases will have unfavourable effects on the production costs of dairy and other products, thus greatly reducing the income of farmers in that part of the country, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard):
That the House authorize the Standing Committee on Agriculture to undertake a study to discover what are the real causes of higher prices for feed grain and also inquire whether those increases will at least accrue to grain growers.


Mr. Speaker:: Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed:


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent; the motion therefore cannot be put.


TRANSPORTATION
[Stage Direction]
REQUEST FOR DREDGING AT ISLE D'ORLfeANS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion.
Considering that dredging works have been completed in 1975 by the federal government at the level of the north crossing on the St. Lawrence, across from Isle d'Orleans, and that no other maintenance works has been done since that time; since the federal government has already decided to place this responsibility on the main user, the Compagnie Aigle d'Or Canada Ltee, while it is normally a federal responsibility, except in this very case, according to the company involved; and finally considering that this unfair situation is causing considerable delay in the development of Quebec harbour, because the company in question cannot afford such costly works, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. Lavoie):
That this House recommend unanimously to the minister in charge to assume the cost of the works involved and to complete them during the summer of 1977.


Mr. Speaker:: Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent; therefore the motion cannot be put.

Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


[Stage Direction]
PREMIER LfeVESQUE'S SPEECH IN NEW YORK-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO COUNTERACT SEPARATIST PROPAGANDA
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Given the fact that Premier Levesque's address last night to United States businessmen enabled him to outline the Quebec government's view of Canada's future to a large audience of Canadians and Americans, and also given the premier's assumption that his objectives could be achieved with little or no economic dislocation, what specific studies has the federal government undertaken, and what information is being prepared for parliament and for all Canadians, about the strong social, political, and economic benefits that accrue from the federal system?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the minister next to me indicates it is part of our whole activity as a government, and as a party, to spell out to Quebeckers in particular and Canadians in general why it is preferable that Quebec remain in confederation.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Given that any uncertainty about the future of the country in the United States might very well affect decisions on investment in Canada which would be detrimental to our economy, and since Mr. Levesque tried to give the impression that the breakup of Canada is inevitable and that some American businessmen might believe him, what new initiatives in the light of this is the government taking to offset his propaganda given in a foreign country and also to ensure full confidence abroad in our future?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not think this is the appropriate place for me to comment on a matter like this. Obviously, it is the duty of all of us as parliamentarians to prove to Canadians on a constant basis that Canada is a better place to be in than if it were broken up by any one province. That is the whole essence of our actions in parliament and that is what we will continue to do. I hope we will be joined in that by the opposition.
Some bon. Members: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I will direct a final supplementary to the Prime Minister since he has not responded to the questions that I put. Given the gravity of the present political situation in Canada, which I hope the Prime Minister does not underestimate, and given the continual public relations campaign against national unity by Premier Levesque, is the Prime Minister saying that no special efforts other than a continuation of the status quo are being made to hold this country together?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the action of this government, at least since I have been Prime Minister, has been to try to prove to Quebeckers that it was to their advantage to be part of Canada, to remain in confederation. It has been our continuing effort also to indicate to the rest of the Canadian people, those outside of Quebec, that it is to their advantage to keep Quebec in confederation. However, we do not believe that it is enough to say to each other that we love each other. It is important that the rest of Canada adopt certain policies which permit Quebeckers to feel that they are an integral part of Canada, that they have equal rights in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In other words, Mr. Speaker, if we want to keep Canada together in both of the linguistic communities, we have to accept the reality of the existence of the other and make a number of concessions to accommodate to that reality. This is our approach to national unity. Perhaps the policy research group of the opposition will come up with an alternative policy some time down the road. Then, we will know how the Tories are thinking.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I am going to pose a supplementary question because, frankly, I resent the inflammatory manner in which the Prime Minister has answered these questions. The questions asked by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands were perfectly straightforward and the Prime Minister can count upon the co-operation of the opposition under our present leader just as he could under my leadership. May I ask the right hon. gentleman whether he intends to continue to try to bait the opposition with regard to this question and conduct it along partisan lines or whether he is really trying to unite this country and all the political parties in meeting this very difficult problem?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am surprised that the hon. member for Halifax should assume that it is possible for me to unite the opposition with the government in our approach to Canada, in our approach to federalism. Obviously, we have different ways of pursuing national unity. This has been explored in our programs and debated during successive election periods. We shall continue to do our best.
As to the questions to which I responded a few moments ago asking me to comment on a speech made by a premier of a province in New York, by a premier of whom we know it is the essence of his actions to try to break up the country, I do not think the House expected me at this time to enumerate all the things we have done or shall be doing to try to keep the country united. That is why my response-and I think it was a perfectly proper one-was to indicate that we have a certain approach to confederation which I assume is different from that of the opposition. But we shall continue to promote it and if the opposition wants to join forces with our prescription for
January 26, 1977

unity we shall welcome them, of course, but it is not apparent to me that that is the case.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: 1 will try a further question-I have been through this with the Prime Minister for some eight years. Does the Prime Minister consider it inappropriate for a question to be directed to him asking him what is being prepared by the federal government by way of information to give to the Canadian people to try to offset the kind of propaganda in which Mr. Levesque indulged in New York? Does he consider it inappropriate that he should be asked in the House what measures he intends to take to counteract any undermining of confidence in Canada created by that speech? These are perfectly simple questions which have been put to the Prime Minister.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: They are perfectly simple questions, Mr. Speaker, and I gave perfectly simple answers. The House and the opposition may not agree with them, but in all earnestness I repeat that we have been for many years now engaged in the task of trying to counteract separatist propaganda in the province of Quebec. The question has achieved new urgency now because of the recent election, but we did not discover the danger of separatism in the last two months, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Paproski:: You said it was dead six months ago.


Mr. Nowlan:: What is this, a resurrection?


Mr. Hees:: You had better tell him what to say, Marc; he is getting into trouble.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Judging from the nervousness of the opposition, Mr. Speaker, they seem to have discovered the danger only last night.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am glad that the lecture in New York by the premier of Quebec has made all Canadians come to the realization that we are in a certain danger. I talked about crisis just six months ago in this House but the opposition pooh-poohed it. I talked about a crisis then because the government's policy on official languages in Canada was not taken seriously enough by a lot of powerful people in this country. So it is not possible today, just because of what happened last night, for me to work myself up into a fervour and say that we are doing a whole lot of new things.


Steve Eugene Paproski: You have not done that for years.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We are going to continue to fight for the unity of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. I would remind the
Oral Questions
Prime Minister that it was he who six months ago said that separatism was dead.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: With regard to what he said was his policy-and I should like to get a clear answer on this-in reply to both questioners from the official opposition he made reference to one policy of the federal government, and I want the Prime Minister to be clear so that we and the people of Canada understand where he is going. Is he saying that the Official Languages Act is the sole foundation of the Liberal party's approach to this question? Because that is all he referred to today. I ask the Prime Minister this because, given the fact that it has created difficulties in the rest of Canada, even though all parties accepted it, more importantly it remains monumentally uninteresting to the people of Quebec. Is the Prime Minister saying he is going to keep Quebec in the federal union by pushing a policy they are not interested in one bit?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, I find it a bit misleading to say that it is monumentally uninteresting in Quebec when there has been a great deal of discussion before, during and since the election by people in Quebec, separatists and nonseparatists, who have been complaining about the fact that our Official Languages Act had not had the effect they had hoped, particularly in the air traffic controllers and pilots affair. Obviously, they had always assumed that this act was going to work. They assumed that it would be acceptable. They assumed that it would have more effect than it did. So this seems to me to prove, Mr. Speaker, that it is a matter of very great importance to them.
As for the preamble to the question, all I said-I repeat it and I think anyone who knows the events of the last provincial election will confirm this-was that when a separatist party has to say that it wants to get elected not on separatism but on good government, it proves that that party itself, the party of the separatists, does not believe that separatism has the support of the electorate of Quebec.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That was my point, Mr. Speaker, and it remains my point, that the Parti Quebecois had to hide the fact that it was separatist in order to get enough votes to be elected in the province of Quebec. That supports my point that separatism was not willed by the people of Quebec.
There is a greater danger now because, having been elected on good government, it is obvious that Mr. Levesque and his party are forgetting that they do not have a mandate for separatism. Mr. Levesque apparently talked of little else last night in New York. He enumerated the things that his government would do, none of which require a change in the constitution; that is to bring in good government, to follow priority, to save money, to bring in better social security, to nationalize asbestos-none of those things demand separation. He continues to prove that the people of Quebec do not believe in

January 26, 1977
Oral Questions
separation, but they will begin to believe it, Mr. Speaker, if the rest of the country does not understand the conditions under which Quebec will stay in confederation, and these are the conditions that this government has been preaching and trying to follow for the past year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Prime Minister. In agreeing that the premier of Quebec said on television that what he wanted to provide was good government to the people of Quebec, and did not argue that separatism was required for that, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he would not also agree that Mr. Levesque won his election on a social democratic program which he referred to-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
An bon. Member: Cheap political talk.


John Edward Broadbent: He referred to the program-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: It was Marc Lalonde's program.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The questions obviously demanding and attracting the attention of the lead questioners of parties on the opposition side should certainly not be set aside by the Chair in view of their importance and tremendous momentary impact. However, up to the moment I have listened to the questions carefully to make sure that they would elicit information from the Prime Minister in respect of his position, but, having regard to the last question, it would obviously elicit information about an event outside the administrative responsibility of the Prime Minister.


SUGGESTION FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PUT MORE EMPHASIS ON ECONOMIC POLICIES TO KEEP CANADA UNITED
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I will try to get the information. Would the Prime Minister agree that Mr. Levesque's appeal in respect of the Official Languages Act played no role in the official campaign of the Parti Quebecois, but that in complete contrast what played the central role was the need for government programs that would deal with unemployment, with housing and with fair taxation? If the Prime Minister agrees with that, would he not agree that it is time the national government of Canada concerned itself with these programs that do affect the people of Quebec as well as elsewhere?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the national government pursues as best it can, in difficult economic times, the policies that we as the federal government
[Mr. Trudeau.J
feel appropriate for this country, and the results are still continuing-


John Edward Broadbent: And you lost Quebec.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there has not been a federal election in Quebec in the last three years. The federal election was in July 1974 and we won that election in Quebec.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: You wouldn't today, Pierre.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Quebec election was lost by a provincial government-


John Edward Broadbent: With your program.


George Harris Hees: With your help, and it was a Liberal government.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The party which lost was not preaching separatism but better government. I am not surprised that this party chooses to identify itself with the social democratic label. I am happy if it makes the Leader of the New Democratic Party happy. I remember a couple of years ago when the New Democratic premier of British Columbia described Mr. Levesque, separatist as he was, as a great Canadian. This is not our view. We feel that he is not a great Canadian.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He may have won an election on a good government policy. We will try to win the next election in Quebec and elsewhere on our programs and on our performances.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: God help us!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That will be the test in the next federal election, but I completely disagree with the inference put forward by the Leader of the New Democratic Party.


FINANCE
Mr. Andr6 Fortin (Lotbini£re):: Mr. Speaker, I would also put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Last night, we all witnessed the premier of a Canadian province talking to American financiers about financial matters and about his program, not at all about linguistic problems. Mr. Speaker, to be faithful to the propositions that Real Caouette used to make to maintain a united Canada when he said that we should finance the provinces and help them develop the public sector. Given those circumstances, would
January 26, 1977

the Prime Minister agree to reconsider the position of his government and submit to the House amendments to the Bank of Canada Act in order to give Canadian provinces a source of revenue and capital other than that of foreign countries? This would prevent such sad spectacles showing our fellow citizens crawling before foreign forces to maintain the development of our own country. Is the government aware of this fact and does it consider that national unity is worth taking over the development of the public sector through our own bank, the Bank of Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not think my answer will satisfy the hon. member because we do not agree on the monetary theory. We believe that the province of Quebec, all the provinces of Canada and the Canadian government as well must borrow out of the savings of Canadian citizens or those of other countries. If Mr. Levesque goes to New York or Europe to borrow his funds, he is doing exactly what the other provincial premiers do, and we do not believe that we just need to print more dollars to be able overnight to achieve everything in this country.


Mr. Fortin:: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary.
Is the right hon. Prime Minister aware that the system he protects-as he just said-by trying to ridicule a solution rather than appreciating it, is planning the construction of 40-only 40, that is not much-housing units in Quebec, in one of my colleagues' riding, to be financed by a federal government loan of $966,960, at a rate of interest of 10 per cent, compounded, for a term of 50 years? Does he realize, instead of laughing at the Social Credit Party of Canada, that the system he protects will force Quebeckers he wants to keep in confederation to reimburse to the federal government the amount of $4,773,350 and that, under those circumstances, it is not interesting to remain in confederation since it only leads to impoverishment, and that provoking the dismemberment of the country is simply a means to maintaining that system?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not scoff at the Social Credit Party of Canada; I say merely that I disagree with its monetary theory. My answer to the hon. member is simply this: the government itself, the government of Canada, pays the interest when it borrows from the citizens. It pays interest in hundreds of millions of dollars each year when it issues Canada Savings Bonds, it pays interest to the citizens who agree to lend it money. If the citizens, including the hon. member, were willing to lend to the government without interest, it too could lend interest-free money to others. But clearly no one asks anyone to hand over his savings without asking for some interest. That applies as well to the government of Canada as to that of Quebec, of the other provinces, and any individual who wants to borrow.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, a last supplementary.
I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Bank of Canada does not have the right to lend money to the provinces, and also, what difference is there between $100 million coming from New York and $100 million coming
Oral Questions
from the Bank of Canada, guaranteed by the same resources and faith in the future?


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. It refers to a matter which has been exposed in the House over the last few days, namely, that of an extra-parliamentary opposition list.
Even though the minister was not responsible for the same portfolio at the time the list was circulated, he was, nevertheless, responsible for firing a senior civil servant for reasons which were found by a judge of the Supreme Court of Ontario to be wrong. Can the minister tell us today what the real reasons for firing Walter Rudnicki from his position with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation were at the time and whether the minister was aware of the blacklist on which Walter Rudnicki's name appeared?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the premise of the question is incorrect as to the finding of the court in Ontario that the dismissal of Mr. Rudnicki from CMHC was wrongful. The balance of the question has been answered by the minister administratively responsible.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, if it is permissible I would like to ask the minister, since he was directly responsible for the department in which this senior civil servant worked, since he was directly responsible for firing him, and since he displayed little concern at the time for the future of this person-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not very much concerned about the argumentative portion at the end of the hon. member's question, but he is seeking the opinion of the Chair, I am sure, in his preamble as to whether it is proper for him to ask questions of the present Minister of Justice about his capacity in an earlier portfolio, and I am sure the House understands we have clearly established that that is not proper.


Frank Oberle: May I phrase the question somewhat differently and merely ask the minister if in his present position as Minister of Justice he would be prepared to display a somewhat greater concern for the injustice which has been perpetrated on this senior official?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Central Nova.


ALLEGED CIRCULATION OF BLACKLIST OF EMPLOYEES- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question of the present Solicitor General. Is he now able to tell this House something

Oral Questions
about what seems on its face to be a rather unfair and paranoid course of action, that is, the circulation of a list which yesterday the government was saying did not exist?


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to make one general remark. In view of the fact that this matter has been bandied back and forth across the floor of this House, and in view of the fact that a number of references have been made to a blacklist, as far as the blacklist is concerned, as that word is normally understood, there is no such thing in existence at the moment, nor can I determine that any such "blacklist" existed in the past.
An examination of the files of my department for the period mentioned by the hon. member yesterday does indicate that there was concern at that time that some government employees might be deliberately releasing government classified information without authorization. Names of those employees were given to the minister of the departments and agencies concerned-


An hon. Member:: That is blacklist.


Francis Fox: -and they were advised by the solicitor general at the time that steps should be taken to ensure that these government employees be fully advised and briefed as to their responsibilities for ensuring the security of classified government information. It was, of course, from that point on the responsibility of each government department to use its own judgment on these recommendations since security matters are a governmental responsibility.
I should like to add that this information was transmitted with the utmost discretion in order that it would not be harmful to the reputation of those involved.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


BASIS ON WHICH ALLEGED BLACKLIST COMPILED
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: This extra-parliamentary opposition list is the only way I have heard it referred to in this House. I want to ask the minister whether, so far as this government is concerned, a difference of opinion, of philosophy or of value systems constitutes grounds for discrimination by this government in the circulation of such a list by this government, which used to call for a just society, and whether or not we could get some information about the justification, the basis and the input of those who compiled the list. Who is ultimately responsible for the circulation of this list, was it the then solicitor general?


Francis Fox: In answer to the first part of the question with regard to discrimination against people not fully sharing the views of this government, of course, no such list whatsoever was compiled on that basis. The list that would have been compiled to which the hon. member refers was based on the vital information to which I
referred in the first part of my answer to the hon. member's first question.


MANPOWER
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In the' knowledge that he has expressed his regrets regarding the scrapping by the minister of immigration in the province of Quebec of federal English language courses for immigrants at immigration centres and that he intends to meet that minister in order to determine what is happening and where he intends to go, and in the knowledge that there are other programs under the minister's jurisdiction dealing with manpower, such as assessment agreements, mobility agreements and adult occupational training grants, which also call for the implementation of agreements by the federal government and in particular at this time by the province of Quebec, has the minister received any indication from his counterpart in the province of Quebec as to the provincial government's intentions with respect to these agreements, keeping in mind that these agreements are based on equality of opportunity?


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: No, Mr. Speaker, other than what has been referred to dealing with the cancellation of English classes for immigrants, I have had no other communication to that effect.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, in light of the gravity of this situation and of the fact that the minister intends to meet the provincial minister responsible for immigration, would he at the same time take it upon himself to meet the minister of manpower, if that is what he is called in the province of Quebec, in order to determine what that government's intentions are with respect to these federal-provincial agreements, and would he kindly report his findings to the House?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: We have in each province a manpower needs committee and the Quebec federal manpower committee is to meet within the next ten days. At that time our officials will be having discussions, and perhaps out of that will flow any suggestions that have to be made. I think Mr. Couture was talking at one instant about doubling the amount of money spent on training in French language for immigrants, but given the decline in immigration it does not seem to be warranted. But I think our federal-provincial manpower committee should look into all these areas and these items will be discussed probably before I meet with my opposite number in Quebec.

January 26, 1977


ABORTION
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Justice. 1 have put this question before in reference to this matter. Is it the intention of the Minister of Justice to bring in new legislation on abortion in light of the fact that the minister intimates that the present law is not working or is working very badly?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I have not intimated that. My present intention is to table in the House the report of Dr. Badgley, and I anticipate doing that in the next few weeks.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In light of the fact that the minister denies that he has intimated that, could he explain to the House why it was necessary to have Dr. Badgley look into the matter if the law is working so well?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Dr. Badgley was appointed to determine in what manner and how equitably the present law was operating, and that is what his report will deal with.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, Quebec justice minister Marc-Andre Bedard said on January 11, 1977 "we find it incomprehensible that the federal government finds the means to keep the RCMP in Quebec, given that the administration of justice is the sole jurisdiction of the province and the government of Quebec wishes to take over all the RCMP functions in Quebec". Can the Solicitor General inform the House what negotiations, if any, are going on between his department and the government of Quebec on the presence of the RCMP in the province?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, there are no negotiations whatsoever going on between my department and the department of justice in Quebec concerning the presence of RCMP in that province. The RCMP is a police force which is at home in every province in this country. I have however, in view of the stated ignorance by the minister of justice as to the operations of the RCMP, many of which have been carried out in the past at the instigation of the attorney general of the province of Quebec, asked my officials and the RCMP officers in Quebec to bring him up to date on our activities in that province.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Justice minister Bedard at the time added that Ottawa owes Quebec $370 million for the provision of police services in Quebec based on the amount of money Ottawa gives to the provinces in which the RCMP acts as a police force. Can the minister tell me whether it is the govern-
Oral Questions
ment's intention to provide funds to Quebec to assist in payments for that force in Quebec and, in view of the statements of the minister, is the government contemplating at any time in the foreseeable future the withdrawal of the RCMP from the province of Quebec and allowing the Quebec provincial police to assume RCMP duties there assisted by federal funds?


Francis Fox: The answer to all the hon. member's questions is no. I should point out, however, that, as he knows full well, when we talk about police services in the country we are not talking about shared cost programs but the federal government has been offering services to certain provinces, for which they pay money to the federal government, not the other way round.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr.   Albert@: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State.
All members and all Canadians already know that, on the invitation of the new President of the United States, the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada is to address the U.S. Congress and Senate some time in February and that this is a premiere for a Canadian Prime Minister. Here is my question: could the Secretary of State get from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation the assurance that the Prime Minister of Canada will get the same treatment, solicitude and publicity as this Crown corporation has given the premier of Quebec yesterday?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely convinced of the significance of the right hon. Prime Minister's speech, as the hon. member has indicated, and I would certainly agree that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation should be apprised of the importance that all hon. members, I am sure, attach to this speech.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. The Solicitor General has now had the opportunity of perusing the June 15, 1971 letter from his predecessor with regard to the alleged listing of civil servants. Would the Solicitor General advise the House whether, in view of the fact that Walter Rudnicki insisted he was included in such a list, he can confirm that in fact Walter Rudnicki was on that list which he has had an opportunity to look at, and can he advise the House whether

January 26, 1977
Oral Questions
Walter Rudnicki was advised about being on that particular list at that time or was anyone else advised they were on such a list?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to confirm the presence of any individuals named on that list for the obvious reason that it must be prejudicial to the reputation of any person whose name would be on such a list.


POSSIBILITY PERSON ON BLACKLIST COULD AFFECT SECURITY OF COUNTRY-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, my question of course was directed only to the case of Walter Rudnicki who himself has insisted that his name was placed on that list. As a supplementary question, may I ask the Solicitor General if he can advise the House how it is that people on that list, who may be employees of Central Mortgage and Housing or DREE could adversely affect the security of this country in the terms defined in the Official Secrets Act? Is there information that those persons could have adversely affected it within the meaning of that act?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my initial response, the sole recommendation made by the Solicitor General at the time was that the people whose names had been identified be briefed on the proper security procedures and the importance of not leaking government information or government documents which contained classified government information.


MANPOWER
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that 55,000 people in the province of Newfoundland are drawing unemployment insurance and another 9,000 are drawing short term assistance-these figures have been confirmed by the Unemployment Insurance Commission and by the Newfoundland government-thereby representing 35 per cent of the work force; and in view of the fact, as pointed out by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby yesterday that the minister's works program is based on the Statistics Canada figure of approximately 14 per cent, may I ask the minister what he intends to do about what has to be an extraordinary situation? Would he accept the suggestion that he look at the possibility of ongoing federal programs being expedited on an emergency basis to alleviate this critical situation?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: First of all, Mr. Speaker, the criteria for the new Canada Works Program will not be based on the criteria for
(Mr. Leggatt.)
LIP. We are endeavouring to improve on that. I am meeting with my officials to go over it and see if we can bring more equity into the program so that we have a more realistic determination of the figures. As far as expediting it, that is what we are endeavouring to do. But each time we endeavour to expedite it, representations are made in the House that deadline dates be extended and that we need more time. What I want to do if possible is expedite the programs that we have; get the applications in and get them approved so that the people can get to work.


James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Realizing the seriousness of the problem may I ask the minister if he would be prepared to send a team of his senior officials to Newfoundland to discuss joint programs with the Newfoundland government which is already seized with the seriousness of the situation and is trying to meet it with whatever remedies lie within their jurisdiction.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, we are ahead of the hon. member. We are constantly meeting with officials from Newfoundland. We have a Newfoundland Federal-Provincial Manpower Needs Committee. We look into all of these areas. I think the fact that in the final analysis we put something in excess of $17 million into that particular region under the LIP program indicates our concern and our knowledge of the situation as expressed by the hon. member. I do not think it is anything new.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Last November the minister indicated that because of the alarming situation with respect to the deterioration, both in numbers and in quality, of refrigerated cars for moving potatoes from eastern Canada, that he would be preparing a submission to cabinet suggesting that the government place on order something like 800 to 1,000 refrigerated boxcars or insulated boxcars in order to service this traffic which would certainly be hampered very much in the future if not this year if such provisions were not made. Has that memorandum been prepared and submitted?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, a lot of work has been done on it and it should be submitted soon.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the minister could indicate whether he has achieved some measure of agreement with the governments of Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick on this. At stake here is a very large question with respect to future transportation, both by rail and by other modes.
January 26, 1977


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the submission will take in all of these facts. They are being considered.


NATIONAL FILM BOARD
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment may I put a question to the Secretary of State? It relates to a film produced by the National Film Board and which was commissioned by the Department of the Environment. The film was entitled "Forecast for Survival" and was completed in July, 1975. Despite repeated requests for release of the film, which cost several thousand dollars, the release has never been accomplished. Is the minister aware whether it has been at the instigation of the Department of the Environment that the National Film Board has refused to release the film?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, 1 am afraid I cannot throw any light on this matter. I will undertake to discuss it with my colleague and report to the hon. member directly.


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his answer. When he is conducting this inquiry will he determine whether it was at the request or insistence of the Department of External Affairs that release was not approved and if not, will he inquire at whose request this release has been suppressed?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I will draw that concern to the attention of the minister.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. Could the Prime Minister tell the House whether it is a policy of his government to require members of parliament wishing to obtain routine information from the civil service, to clear their calls through the minister's office before attempting to obtain such information?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Not that I know of, Mr. Speaker. Ministers have authority in their own departments and they may convey information to departments but I do not know of any general rule.
Privilege-Mr. Oberle


POLICY OF MINISTER OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE WITH REGARD TO MEMBERS SEEKING INFORMATION FROM DEPARTMENT
Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare? Can the minister indicate whether it is his policy or whether he has issued a directive to his department forbidding information to be given to members of parliament before clearance with his office and if so, for what reasons?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I have not issued any instruction not to provide hon. members with information, but I thought it could be a lot easier and quicker if I personally served as intermediary for providing information to hon. members and receiving theirs. The hon. members concerned would therefore be served a lot better and quicker.


PARTICIPATION OF CANADA IN WORLD HOCKEY CHAMPIONSHIP AT VIENNA-REQUEST THAT MINISTER AID IN RECRUITMENT
Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of State responsible for Fitness and Amateur Sport.
In view of the fact that Canada is to take part shortly in World Hockey Championship competitions in Vienna, that these competitions will take place during the Stanley Cup playoffs, which will make it difficult to obtain outstanding hockey players, and that Mr. Holmes, the new Team Canada director, stated during a press conference held last fall in Montreal that participation in this great international tournament could result in a loss of prestige for Canadian hockey, could the minister advise the House whether she is aware of the situation and, if so, whether she intends to take action to correct this situation, in order to foster the pride of Canadians because of their marked interest in international competitions?


Hon. Iona Campagnolo (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of this matter. However, I am Minister of Amateur Sport and this is a very professional undertaking but I shall try in an indirect way to have some of the representatives see that the prestige of Canada is upheld to the maximum degree.


PRIVILEGE
Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, it is with great reluctance that I rise on a question of privilege

Privilege-Mr. Oberle
which affects not only the privileges and position of this House but is fundamentally important to the value every citizen places in our country, its system of government, the basic rights of individuals and their civil liberties.
Mr. Speaker, I and other members of the opposition in the House have for some time attempted in the House as well as by other means to encourage the government to provide us with information with regard to a most serious matter respecting national security.
In 1971, the then solicitor general reacted to information which had been accumulated and passed on to him by either the security service of the RCMP or a security agency functioning under his own authority. The solicitor general wrote a letter to a number of his senior cabinet colleagues and undertook to discuss with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) the allegations which had been made to him. He attached to his letter a list of names of individuals, some of whom were employees of the public service at the time, all of whom were accused of subversive activities directed against the government.
Contrary to what the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) said in the House, the letter identifies these people as the new left and states that they seek to organize and radicalize the underclasses in our society and to mould them into a revolutionary force capable of overthrowing our present socio-political system.
Mir. Paproski: Stick around, Lalonde.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am most anxious to allow the hon. member sufficient amplitude to develop at least the beginning of a question of privilege, but I am also anxious for the hon. member to restrict his disclosures to those facts which will support his case. I do not intend to interfere, but I invite the hon. member to come to the point and state the question of privilege.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, this is the second occasion in my years of service in the House on which I have raised a question of privilege. This matter is of the gravest importance to all of this country. I will make my argument as short as I can.
A radical EPO program is referred to in the letter, and this organization is predicated on a total and unequivocal rejection of representative democracy, its destruction and the creation of radical alternatives. If true, this must be considered a most serious affront to our system. The Solicitor General, of course, had every justification to act as he did. Indeed, he rightly considered it his responsibility to mobilize our own security forces against such challenges. There are, however, further actions the government should have undertaken. First, and most important, the government should have ordered a complete and comprehensive inquiry into the affair.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not challenging the hon. member's right to discuss matters of importance or to criticize the government in the past or now. However, I want the hon.

member to give some indication to the House of the basis upon which he is claiming that this is a matter of privilege and has priority over the other items of business to which the House would normally turn at this time.


Frank Oberle: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I have laid the groundwork for a serious allegation and a serious question of privilege. If Your Honour and hon. members will bear with me for just a couple of minutes more I will get to the point. My question of privilege is this. Several of my colleagues have known, have tried to inform the government of this information, and have invited them to react. What constitutes the real question of privilege, of course, is the fact that despite the implications for the House of this matter, almost all the ministers connected with the list, as well as the Prime Minister, have denied knowledge of the affair. Having regard to the seriousness of the matter, which received the attention of the government at the time, I have good reason to assume that the Prime Minister and several ministers of the Crown have deliberately misled this House and the Canadian people.


An hon. Member:: Prove it.


An hon. Member:: Make a charge.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: The hon. member has made the charge.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, if you find that there is a prima facie case of privilege, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
That the matter of the extraparliamentary opposition which is referred to in a document circulated by the Solicitor General to members of the government and the Prime Minister be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I think that in rising on a question of privilege, the hon. member has instead abused the privileges of this House because he has taken advantage of this opportunity to read into the record of the House the documents he had in hand. As for us, we have taken all the necessary steps to prevent that kind of document, of a privileged nature and circulated between members of the cabinet, from being made public, precisely to protect the reputation of the people involved. The charges he makes do not contain any prima facie elements of a question of privilege. Anyway, what the opposition asked us point-blank to do yesterday was to comment on a document which was apparently written in 1971. We are expected to read that kind of document immediately, which is obviously impossible.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member's representations are much more in the nature of a debate. Their purpose seems to me to be much more that of raising passions, setting aside all restraint and giving all this matter a Machiavellian aura, while in fact it was simply a question of asking people to ensure that the security and confidentiality procedures within the government are enforced.
January 26, 1977

It was obviously, Mr. Speaker, the duty of the then solicitor general to bring this to the attention of his colleagues so that the loyalty of the servants of the state be held up in all respects to the requirements of the law.
Let me say in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member did not raise a question of privilege, but simply abused the privileges of the House to try and raise a debate which he would not have been able to raise otherwise.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to take part in the debate on this question of privilege, but I wish to give notice that I am seeking to rise on a point of order related to the same general subject: I shall do so after you have ruled on the question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) gave the Chair notice of his intention to raise a question of privilege. The notice is in the following terms:
I wish to give you notice that at 3 p.m. this afternoon, January 26th, I will be raising a question of privilege with respect to the matter of an extraparliamentary opposition list which has been dealt with in the House since the resumption of parliament on January 24, 1977.
Indeed, the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River did raise, or propose a question of privilege related to that subject and proposed, if the Chair would find in his favour, that he would move, seconded by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) that the matter of an extraparliamentary opposition which is referred to in a document circulated by the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) to members of the government be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. I twice invited the hon. member to bring the matter within the confines of a question of privilege as we have defined it on many occasions in the past.
It ought to be remembered that questions of privilege have two important characteristics. In the first instance, they fall within a very narrowly-defined limit which has to do with the interference or prevention in some way of the ability of a member of the House of Commons from fulfilling his responsibilities, tantamount to a physical prevention of the hon. member from carrying out his responsibilities. It certainly has not been extended to include any sort of disagreement, interruption or argument; it has to be a deliberate prevention of the hon. member's ability to carry out his duties.
With respect to disagreements about answers given in the House, even misleading answers, there has long been a precedent established. Misleading answers, questions which seek to criticize those answers given, statements which even go to the extent of saying that the answers are misleading, that answers are contradictory as between one minister and another, or that the same minister has given conflicting or contradictory answers on different occasions, have all been held in the past to be matters of debate and not questions of privilege.
The second aspect of the question of privilege has often been referred to-misleadingly, I think- as having to do with a prima facie case. I think that language is somewhat mislead-
Privilege-Mr. Oberle
ing. It ought to be understood that that aspect of the question of privilege is such that the motion which is sought to be put forward by the hon. member ought to take precedence over every other order of business. The subject of this motion, or the subject of the hon. member's comments, could, of course, be put forward by him in a substantive motion. That motion would not have the priority of a question of privilege.
The Chair must decide whether, because the privileges of members of the House are touched or affected, or because what is known as the collective privileges of the House are adversely affected, the hon. member's motion ought to have priority over other business and ought to be put by the Chair in precedence to the order of the business of the House. In line with the very strict definition of privilege in the past, I cannot find that his motion should fall within that category, although his complaint or grievance falls within that category which I take to be a matter of disagreement.
There is one aspect of the matter which remains to be clarified, and it is this: in the course of his remarks, the hon. member did not simply refer to answers or performances by ministers which were misleading. Rather, he used the words "deliberately misleading". If that is the subject of calculated language on the part of the hon. member, he ought to form a substantive charge because it is a very serious allegation. However, in the circumstances, the details were not spelled out in respect of the hon. member's presentation at this time, and after reflection the hon. member may wish to pursue that point further. At the moment I must find that he has a grievance, or has raised a disagreement and grievance which does not constitute a question of privilege.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated a moment ago, I rise on a matter related to the same issue that has been under discussion, except that in this case it is a point of order that I wish to raise. Beauchesne, in his fourth edition, at page 134 states in citation 159(2) as follows:
A minister of the Crown is not at liberty to read or quote from a despatch or other state paper not before the House, unless he be prepared to lay it upon the table. This restraint is similar to the rule of evidence in courts of law, which prevent counsel from citing documents which have not been produced in evidence. The principle is so reasonable that it has not been contested; and when the objection has been made in time, it has been generally acquiesced in.
I submit that I am raising it at the first opportunity. We now have a rule that we do not raise points of order during the question period. I rose at three o'clock, at the same time as my friend, and I am up again now. May I also read the first sentence of 159(3):
It has been admitted that a document which has been cited ought to be laid upon the table of the House, if it can be done without injury to the public interest.
I have read that sentence, not just because it is in line with the previous paragraph but because I want to make a reference in a moment to the phrase "without injury to the public interest". The Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) made reference two or three times to a letter which we assume to be a letter

January 26, 1977
Privilege-Mr. Oberle
written by the then solicitor general on June 15, 1971, which we understand was sent to five or six ministers of that day. The Solicitor General today has given a description of what was contained in the letter. I have to say that his summary of the letter does not conform with our understanding of what was in that letter, but he has used his description of it as part of the argument. In other words, he is citing that letter as part of this debate.


Mr. Goyer:: Table it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) should know that one of the rules of this House is that private members cannot table documents.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Give it to the press.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, this has developed into a serious issue. This House has the right to know what was in that letter; in particular, whether that the letter corresponds to the description of it given today by the present Solicitor General. The minister cited it. True, he did not pick it up and read from it; he did not quote from it. However, he has told us what is in the letter. It is part of the argument. I believe the minister ought to be required to table the letter.
I indicated that one of the qualifications is that this should be done without injury to the public interest. I believe it would injure the public interest to give publicity to any names of persons in that letter or in a page attached thereto. I believe it would do injury to the public interest to give publicity to the names of organizations that might be named in that letter. I submit, therefore, that names of persons and organizations contained in the letter should be blacked out, but that having cited this document the minister should be required by the rules of this House to lay it on the table of the House with the appropriate blacking out as I have suggested.
[ Translation]


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, first I am simply going to note the admission made by my learned colleague that I did not quote the letter in the House. This is the first point on which I wanted to draw Your Honour's attention.
Second, if you have examined the initial answer I gave this afternoon, I did not refer to any letter. In fact hon. members of the opposition mentioned a letter and a date throughout the debate. As far as I am concerned, I said that the then solicitor general had to advise and counsel the other members of the Privy Council on a situation which had been brought to his attention.
Moreover, let me point out that if the letter which hon. members are speaking about and which they seem to know does exist, it would be a letter between ministers of the Crown relating to a security subject which obviously should not be revealed in the public interest.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to this matter for a moment. There is a precedent set by the former Speaker, the Hon. Lucien Lamou-reux, with regard to a matter which I raised in this House. The Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) will remember it very well as he was solicitor general at the time. It involved the murder case of Geoffroy who was released after being convicted of murdering his wife: he was released so that he could marry his girlfriend. During the course of that case, the minister quoted from letters of the girlfriend and from other people, even men of the cloth. The minister, having quoted and having paraphrased some of them, the Hon. Lucien Lamou-reux ruled those letters had to be produced, and they were produced. I agree with the NDP that even worse than quoting from a letter is to paraphrase it and leave the wrong impression so that there could possibly be a misrepresentation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In light of those facts, in light of the precedent I have mentioned, and other precedents well known to the House, I would ask that there be an order forthwith, in accordance with the suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), to block out parts of it if they are objectionable. Of course, there is something objectionable in the fact that they would have a list.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order to provide the kind of evidence at this point that would support the contention of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that the interpretation of the contents of the alleged letter given by the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) departs in part very significantly from the kind of interpretation that those of us on this side who have read the letter would give to it. I say "in part significantly" because the minister left out a reference to what some of us consider to be a central concern of the letter; that is, its reference to extraparliamentary, radical leftist groups.
The minister made reference in his comments earlier in the House to the dissemination in an inappropriate way of government documents. I see the minister is nodding. The implication was that that was the exclusive concern of the government. I would like to read a short paragraph from the letter which leads to a very different interpretation. The letter that we have reason to believe is the one the minister is referring to contains the following, with certain names blocked out:
The short-term political objectives of... group include the organizing and radicalizing of sympathetic civil servants in getting them to support its long-term political program of socialist revolution. These people are also involved in dissemination of government information to other radical groups across the country. For example, we have information to show that a member of... has passed on information from ... to .. . who was a representative of. .. at the recent... conference.
The point I am making is that the letter makes very serious allegations about civil servants in the present employ of the government. It is not simply a matter of distributing a document which may or may not be a confidential one. The author of this letter goes well beyond that in his accusations about
January 26, 1977

people who are in no position to defend themselves because they do not know that this very serious allegation has been made about them.
Therefore, I support the point of order which was made by our House leader, that the letter referred to by the Solicitor General, exclusive of the names of individuals and organizations, be tabled because it is important for the House to know just what was being said about certain civil servants. Moreover, it is important that those civil servants should know at an early point that serious allegations of this kind were brought against them. A colleague of mine suggested earlier today that they be told on a confidential basis so that these allegations- and they are no more than that at this point-be made known to them and that their names not be smeared as would be the case if names were made public.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the submissions which have been made by various members who have spoken, and as I listened to what has been said and the precedents which have been cited- although the precedents are well-founded- I think it is not just a case where we can say that a letter like this, containing allegations which we have only partially heard in accordance with the record, should be tabled. I think it would be an injustice if that letter were not tabled in full, because failure to do that, failure to table the text of the letter in full-with the appropriate names blanked out, as suggested-would leave the impression that whatever allegations are contained therein might be more serious than they really are and, indeed, taking it in reverse, that the reputations of those public servants would be even more damaged than by the failure and the half-truths-I do not suggest this in the sense of misleading- by the "half of the case" now on the public record. At least half of the case, and perhaps more, is now on the public record; who knows?
I think it would be a travesty, an injustice, if the precedents were not followed to put the full case on the record so that the appropriate judgments might be made. I would be greatly surprised if there were any hesitation at all on the part of a law officer of the Crown who has some responsibility in terms of civil rights-not complete responsibility from the point of view of the government but at least some responsibility-in refusing to table that letter. I would think he ought to acquiesce and volunteer the letter to the House.


Frank Oberle: Further to this point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would add that it would seem to me that the paragraph which was offered to the House by the leader of the New Democratic Party would indeed coincide with the document which I have in my possession. It makes a farce of the statement the Solicitor General has made about the sensitivity of this document and the precautions which were taken to keep the document secret. I have a copy of it, and so has the leader of the NDP. I do not know how many more people have copies of this document.
Privilege-Mr. Oberle


An hon. Member:: How many did you make?


Frank Oberle: I did not give a copy of the letter that I have to the leader of the NDP, and I do not know where he got it from. To get back to the earlier point of order and the question of privilege I raised, I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to take under further advisement the fact that I cannot see that the House should continue sitting here talking about anything else but this particular matter, in light of the fact that ministers opposite have consistently and categorically denied the existence of this thing and that they have deliberately misled this House.


An hon. Member:: In other words, they lied.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member earlier argued his question of privilege. I indicated to him that a charge of misleading the House, if it is to form a question of privilege, must surely have a particularization to it which would enable the Chair to recognize the specific nature of the matter before determining whether or not it should be referred to a committee. The general allegation made by the hon. member certainly does not bring it within the confines of a question of privilege, and that matter has now been decided.
In respect of the point of order, I am prepared to hear the rest of what the hon. member has to say, as well as the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) who I think is also seeking to make a contribution to the discussion.


Frank Oberle: Your Honour will recall that you interrupted me on several occasions when I tried to make my charge and my argument. I would at this point be prepared to read the letter in full, and I would then ask you to tell the House and the public of Canada whether these people, in their answers to our questions, not just yesterday and the day before, but on October 13, and in offices of high officials of this country, have deliberately misled and lied and denied this serious allegation.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member should realize that if he has an argument to make with respect to the allegations he made earlier, he ought to have made it earlier. This is not the time, in my opinion, for the hon. member to present further argument in support of what was a suggested question of privilege. I have made a ruling on that matter and it is now decided.
There is a point of order before the House. It is not for the Chair to take responsibility for what hon. members want to introduce into argument. If the hon. member wants to read that document, or any other, with respect to an argument on a point of order, that is his choice, not the choice of the Chair. I have no control over the substance of arguments put on a point of order.
There is a difficult point of order before the House. Arguments have been made, and I am prepared to listen to any relevant arguments from either side before coming to a conclusion. The point of order is somewhat narrow in scope. It has to do with the obligation of a minister to table a document which he has cited in argument in the House. That precedent has

Privilege-Mr. Oberle
been clearly applied in circumstances in which a minister, during the course of debate, has made reference to a document to support his argument, that document not being in the possession of others who are arguing in the same debate.
The clear, common sense of the rule is that all participants in the debate ought to have the same advantage. On the other hand, precedents have equally indicated that this rule was never intended to imply that simply by putting a question to a minister during the question period about the existence of a document, and then having him get up and say that no such document exists, it is possible to insist upon the document being tabled on the ground that the minister had referred to it. However, the argument is still not concluded and I will hear further from hon. members.


Frank Oberle: If the minister is, as seems obvious, not prepared to table the document at this point, I am certainly prepared to follow the responsible course outlined by the leader of the New Democratic Party by blanking out references to individuals and organizations named in the letter, and I should like to read into the record the letter I have in my possession which we believe to be the letter which caused all the controversy. It is a letter dated June 15, 1971, and it is under the letterhead of the Solicitor General of Canada. It reads:
My dear Colleague:
I have recently received a report containing information which the Security Service has accumulated about the concept of "Extra-Parliamentary Opposition" (EPO) as interpreted by advocates of the New Left in Canada. The report also draws attention to the activities of various persons and groups, some of them employees of the Federal Government, who support the EPO concept and who appear to have as their aim the destruction of the existing political and social structure in Canada.
The EPO concept, in the context of the New Left, does not mean legitimate pressure group activity but rather the creation of counter or parallel institutions within society but opposed to it and to the electoral process. Through such institutions the New Left seeks to organize and radicalize the "underclasses" of society and mould them into a revolutionary force capable of overthrowing the present socio-political system.
According to an article ... which appeared in the November/December 1967 issue of.. ."people will not move against institutions of power until the legitimizing authority has been stripped away". The radical EPO program of the Left is, in short, a movement strategy predicated on a total and unequivocal rejection of representative democracy, its destruction and the creation of radical alternatives.
An integral part of this strategy is ... in Toronto, which is under the control of two editorial members of-
And a certain institution.
They are attempting, through a program of workers' and community control, and in conjunction with organizations such as ... in Montreal to implement the radical EPO program. ... has, for example, penetrated and gained control of the Just Society-
As an interesting sideline, I suppose the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) might be offended by this particular term.
-originally a legitimate citizens' group, and is utilizing this organization as a radicalizing agent among the poor as well as a stepping stone into other legitimate welfare agencies such as the Toronto Metropolitan Social Planning Council and the United Appeal. Through the Just Society. . . the recent Poor People's Conference, was able to turn this Conference into a sounding board for its radical EPO program and revolutionary propaganda.. . . has also been active [Mr. Speaker.)
in the sphere of industrial unions, such as the Reform Caucus of the Canadian Labour Congress, endeavouring to establish contacts who might be receptive to its concept of workers' control. There are indications that. . . through contacts in government, was able to ensure that it received a recent federal grant of $68,000.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Frank Oberle: There is more interesting reading, if my colleagues will bear with me.
Of more concern, however, is the presence within certain government departments and agencies, particularly CMHC, of a small group of former campus revolutionaries. This group was led until recently by... of the Canadian Union of Students-
These names will soon all be public and then hon. members will know them; it will make for much more interesting reading.
This radical revolutionary has left the country but his disciples remain.
The short-term political objectives of. .. group include the organizing and radicalizing of sympathetic civil servants and getting them to support its long-term political program of socialist revolution. These people are also involved in dissemination of government information to other radical groups across the country. For example, we have information to show that a member of the Task Force on Youth has passed on information from the Task Force to a New Leftist, who was a representative of. .. at the recent Poor People's Conference.
Though a number of. . . group within the Public Service is small, probably not in excess of twenty-five, the picture presented is worrying, suggesting as it does a conscious attempt by various persons to use the knowledge and the influence gained by their employment with the Federal Government to further their own ends. For this reason, I have attached a list of those we suspect of being engaged in or sympathetic to EPO activity in one way or another, with the recommendation that steps be taken to ensure that these people have been fully briefed as to their responsibilities for ensuring the security of government information and that their activities be watched with more than normal care.
He then goes on to say: "I have sent this same letter to our colleagues Mr. Pelletier, Mr. Munro, Mr. Lang, Mr. Mar-chand, and I will be discussing this matter with the Prime Minister in due course".
This letter is addressed, Mr. Speaker, to the Hon. Robert Andras and is signed "Jean-Pierre Goyer, Solicitor General of Canada". I am at liberty, Mr. Speaker, to disclose that one name on this list is that of Walter Rudnicki, who was a senior policy planner with Central Mortgage and Housing at the time; and I am prepared to allege that this senior civil servant was fired for the reason of being on this list.


Mr. O'Connell:: Mr. Speaker, I intended to speak-


Mr. Speaker:: Is this on the same point of order?


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Yes, Mr. Speaker, on a very narrow aspect of the point of order. Regardless of the fact that the main contents of the letter have now been made public, it seems to me that the point of order had to do with a request for an expurgated version of a letter, one with certain names omitted. An expurgated document, I suggest, is not a document within the meaning of the rules, either the scope or the intent of the rules or comments in Beauchesne. A document referred to or cited by a minister of the Crown, if it is required to be tabled, must be tabled as the document and not as a modified document. So I would suggest very briefly, Mr. Speaker, that
January 26, 1977

the point of order is not a valid point of order because it seeks a document which is not a document within the rules.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It may very well be, of course, that the point of order has now become entirely academic. I repeat that there is no rule of this chamber that I am aware of which in any way restricts argument on a point that is properly before the House in respect to the reading of the letter which the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River has just read, unless perhaps it offends one of the Standing Orders or in any way is irrelevant to the argument. Certainly, if the argument is over the tabling of a document and a member wishes to read into the record what he alleges to be the document in question, I can scarcely find that to be irrelevant to the question before the House.
However, the argument having concluded, it still remains for the Chair to determine whether or not the Solicitor General can, by the point of order, be compelled to table any document that is allegedly in his possession. Again I indicate that the precedents are of sufficient complexity, and in apparent disagreement on some points of argument, that I will have to examine them and perhaps endeavour to make a ruling on this question tomorrow.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I should like to refer back, on my question of privilege, to a question and answer yesterday in the House when the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle)-


Some hon. Members:: Page?


Otto Emil Lang: Page 2340 of Hansard-asked me a question concerning a document which he said was identified as an extraparliamentary opposition list. I replied that I had never heard of or seen such a list. I must say that in his question the hon. member made no reference to any date. If he had, I might-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: If he had, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not aware of any definition of a question of privilege that would permit clarification of a question or an answer given on a previous occasion. There may be subsequent occasions to raise the matter, but I am not aware of any way in which it can be approached by way of a question of privilege.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am not attempting to clarify the answer by any means, if hon. members would allow me to come to the conclusion of my statement. The reason I am raising a question of privilege is in case, in the words used in the various submissions by hon. members, I misled the House by reference to this answer. I think there is a possibility that he may be suggesting that. If he is suggesting that, I would like him to say so clearly; but he might first hear what I would say to him on it, Mr. Speaker. As I said, if I had heard the date in that question I might have answered that I do not
Order Paper Questions
remember ever having seen or heard of such a list, but in fact-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: -having now heard the letter to which the hon. member refers that does include a reference to the list that he is talking about, I can now say that I scarcely believe that I could have forgotten having seen such a letter at that time. I would still have to say, if he asked the question again, that I certainly cannot remember ever having seen such a letter or heard of it. Therefore, I think that clarification should be made known to him.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a reference from the Anti-Inflation Board concerning Canadian linen supply.


RAILWAY ACT
Otto Emil Lang: for leave to introduce Bill C-31, to amend the Railway Act.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 177, 178, 179, 180, 189, 192, 337, 338, 339, 359, 665, 825, 909, 944, 982, 1,016, 1,033, 1,034, 1,081, 1,148, 1,152, 1,155, 1,165, 1,185, 1,195, 1,210, 1,217, 1,218, 1,228, 1,261, 1,277, 1,295, 1,299, 1,332 and 1,365.


Mr. Caccia: What was the (a) federal (b) provincial tax saving for each income group listed in Table 2 of the 1976 edition of Taxation Statistics for items (i) 28 (ii) 29

Order Paper Questions
(iii) 30 (iv) 31 (v) 32 (vi) 33 (vii) 35 (viii) 36 (ix) 37 (x) 38 (xi) 39 (xii) 40 (xiii) 41 (xiv) 42 (xv) 43 (xvi) 44 (xvii) 45 (xviii) 46 (xix) 47 (xx) 48 (xxi) 49, taking into account the the applicable marginal tax rates?


Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: The information requested is not generated routinely in the regular processing of taxation data. To obtain this information would require special data processing the cost of which would be several thousands of dollars. Answering the question would thus be prohibitively expensive.


Mr. Caccia: What was the (a) federal (b) provincial tax saving for each income group listed in Table 2 of the 1976 edition of Taxation Statistics resulting from the exclusion of 50% of net capital gains from taxable income, taking into account the applicable marginal tax rates?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The information requested is not generated routinely in the regular processing of taxation data. To obtain this information would require special data processing, the cost of which would be several thousands of dollars. Answering the question would thus be prohibitively expensive.


Mr. Caccia: What was the amount by which the (a) federal (b) provincial tax payable by each income group listed in Table 15 of the 1976 edition of Taxation Statistics would have been reduced if the old age pension income set out in the table had not been received, taking into account the applicable marginal tax rates?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The information requested is not generated routinely in the regular processing of taxation data. To obtain this information would require special data processing, the cost of which would be several thousands of dollars. Answering the question would thus be prohibitively expensive.


Mr. Caccia: What was the amount by which the (a) federal (b) provincial tax payable by each income group listed in Table 15 of the 1976 edition of Taxation Statistics would have been reduced if the unemployment insurance benefits set out in the table had not been received, taking into account the applicable marginal tax rates?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The information requested is not generated routinely in the regular processing of taxation data. To obtain this information would require special data processing, the cost of which would be several thousands of dollars. Answering the question would thus be prohibitively expensive.
[Mr. Caccia.1


Mr. Johnston: 1.	What is the total sum of loans since the inception of the student loan programme?
2.	What is the sum of the loans written off as non-collectable?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: 1. To June 30, 1976, $935.6 million.
2.	To June 30, 1976, $502,281 which includes $98,672 deleted on account of the death of the borrowers after a claim was paid under the guarantee provision of the legislation.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What is the complete employment history of positions held, along with appropriate dates, by Miss Diane Lavictoire, with the Unemployment Insurance Commission?
2.	In what location is she now stationed and in what capacity?
3.	What have been the total expenses, allowances or benefits, over and above salary, paid to her since joining UIC?
4.	(a) How many trips has she made for UIC at public expense (b) was one of the trips to Pembroke, Ontario and, if so, for what purpose and did she accompany, or was she accompanied by, Mr. Chris Patterson, Senior Operations Officer?
5.	What is the total number of trips she took at the instruction of Mr. Patterson and on how many was she either accompanied by him or did she accompany him?
6.	(a) What are the names and positions of all persons who have at any time authorized any of her expenses (b) were any authorized by Mr. Patterson and, if so, how many?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: In so far as the Unemployment Insurance Commission is concerned-1. Manuals Writer, Head Office, 19.06.721.06.73; Editor, Head Office 1.06.73-19.10.73; Assistant Chief, Administrative Services, Ottawa District Office, 19.10.73-1.12.73; Chief, Administrative Services, Metro Toronto, 1.01.74-1.05.74; Chief, Administrative Services, Wil-lowdale District Office, 1.05.74-22.09.75; Chief, Administrative Services, High Park District Office, 22.09.75-26.04.76; Chief, Administrative Services, Toronto West District Office, 26.04.76-Present.
2.	Chief, Administrative Services, Toronto West District Office.
3.	$2,665.03.
4.	(a) Twenty-five; (b) Yes. As a member of a project team, she assisted in setting up a new district office in Pembroke. No. Mr. Patterson was in Pembroke as leader of the project team.
5.	Nine. None.
6.	(a) Assistant Manager, Regional Pay Centre, Regional Advisor Finance, Regional Comptroller, Regional Manager of Operations, District Manager, Willowdale, centralization Project Planner; (b) No.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	How many leases, at the Montreal West Island Benny Farm Housing Project for Second World War and Korean War veterans, are signed with tenants who are not veterans and in what years will the leases expire?
2.	Are there any renewal option clauses in the leases and, if so, what are the conditions?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: am advised by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows: 1. As at September 30, 1976, 124 leases at the Benny Farm housing project were signed by non-veterans. These leases are on a month-to-month basis.
2.	Under provincial legislation, a tenant may cancel with two months' notice; otherwise, the lease renews itself. The owner cannot prevent renewal except for cause.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	In each of the past five years, how many applicants for an apartment were received from veterans at the Montreal West Island Benny Farm Housing Project for Second World War and Korean War veterans?
2.	How many veterans are presently on a waiting list for an apartment?


André Ouellet: am advised by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, as follows: 1. Applications for apartments in the Benny Farm housing project, received from veterans over the past five years, are as follows: 1972, 24; 1973, 37; 1974, 74; 1975, 66; 1976, January-September 75.
2. As at September 30, 1976, there were 318 applications from veterans on the waiting list.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Herbert: 1.	How many current leases have been signed by (a) veterans (b) civilians at the Montreal West Island Benny Farm Housing Project for Second World War and Korean War veterans?
2.	How many apartments are in the project?
3.	Do any vacancies exist and, if so, how many?


André Ouellet: am advised by Centra! Mortgage and Housing Corporation, as follows: 1. Current leases at the Benny Farm Housing Project have been signed by (a) 259 veterans of the Second World War; (b) 124 non-veterans.
2.	There are 384 apartment units in the project, one of which is used as the rental office.
3.	As at September 30, 1976, there were two vacancies which have since been rented to veterans.


Mr. MacKay: 1.	What is the name, regimental and service number of each tenant presently residing at Benny Farm Veterans Apartments and on what date did their tenancy commence?
2.	Does a system of priorities exist whereby only veterans can be eligible for tenancy at Benny Farm?


André Ouellet: 1
am advised by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, as follows: 1. The years in which tenants at Benny Farm Housing Project, Montreal, took occupancy, are summarized in the following table:
Non-
Year	Veterans	Veterans	Toi1947	1	0	11950	1	0	11951	5	0	51952	2	0	21953	5	0	51954	4	0	41955	2	0	21956	6	0	61957	6	2	81958	8	2	101959	11	3	141960	6	2	81961	10	5	151962	10	3	13
Non-
Year	Veterans	Veterans	Total1963	9	9	181964	6	5	111965	9	10	191966	12	13	251967	6	10	161968	16	13	291969	13	6	191970	12	19	311971	9	9	181972	21	13	341973	23	0	231974	24	0	241975	12	0	121976	10	0	10259	124	383
2408

January 26, 1977
Order Paper Questions
Information on the personal circumstances of tenants are considered to be matters to be held in confidence between landlord and tenant.
2. Veterans have always been given priority for tenancy at Benny Farm Housing Project. To avoid unnecessary vacancy loss, vacant units have been allocated, from time to time, to non-veteran applicants when there are no veteran applicants available.


Mr. Lachance: Between the date of the presentation of the last budget May 25, 1976 and October 12, 1976, did the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, Atomic Energy Control Board, Eldorado Nuclear Limited, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, National Energy Board, Energy Supplier Allocation Board and Uranium Canada Limited hire, dismiss or transfer employees to other departments and, if so, how many?


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Parliamentary Secretarv to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Department of Energy,	Hired Dismissed	TransferredMines and Resources Atomic Energy Control	234 2	33Board Eldorado Nuclear	16	-Limited Atomic Energy of	1	-Canada Limited	186 1	6National Energy Board Energy Supplies	22 5	7Allocation Board Uranium Canada	42Limited	-


Mr. Yewchuk: What funds were expended by the Department of the Environment on research into means of processing freshwater rough fish into palatable human food in (a) 1970 (b) 1971 (c) 1972 (d) 1973 (e) 1974 (f) 1975 and what were the results of such research?


Mr. Jim Fleming (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: 1970, $8,500; 1971, $13,000; 1972, $15,000; 1973, $19,000; 1974, $15,000; 1975, $20,000. Chronological summary of research activities in processing under-utilized species of freshwater fish. 1970: A simple oil-fired dryer designed and tested to process dried fish from under-utilized species as a relatively stable animal food supplement in remote fishing areas of central Canada. 1971/1972: Development of formulated battered and breaded products and processing system on behalf of the Freshwater Fish Marketing

Corporation using mullet as the primary nutritional base. The nutritional base diluted with the flesh of other species without affecting textural or flavour characteristics of finished product. Storage study undertaken to evaluate the frozen stability of the product manufactured from flesh of different initial freshnesses. Resulting products market tested with satisfactory results and pilot plant production commenced. Project terminated towards the end of 1972. 1972: Development of a formulated battered product on behalf of a southwestern Ontario processor using the minced flesh of two under-utilized Great Lakes species as the nutritional base. Product marketed commercially. 1972/1973: As a result of industry requests, continued work was undertaken to develop a processing system and specifications to produce a sardine type product from Great Lakes alewife. This project progressed to the stage of U.S. market testing and label design. A rapid system of thawing blocks of minced frozen mullet to minimize quality deterioration was developed on behalf on the F.F.M. Corporation. A batch system was designed, based on the recirculation of water at a high relative initial temperature and carried through to the pilot plant stage. To improve quality maintenance of freshwater fish at production points, a portable insulated fish holding room suitable for transportation by light aircraft was designed. Developed for use in short duration fishing operations in isolated areas, for chilling and holding fish in cool storage prior to shipment to processing centres. There are several units currently in use in the fishery. An investigation into the use of polyphosphate to control thaw-drip in frozen and thawed blocks of minced mullet was undertaken on behalf of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. The result of this work is being applied in their flesh separating processing operations. 1974: Several canned fish products developed at the request of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation and other segments of the inland fish processing industry including: northern pike fish balls in sauce; chowders, using northern pike, whitefish and burbot as the nutritional bases; smoked carp fillets in oil; smoked tullibee fillets in oil; tullibee fillets in various sauces. 1974/1975: Further work undertaken to develop an improved battered and breaded formulated product from minced mullet including a redesigned processing system. Product market tested at the institutional level in cooperation with the Manitoba Department of Industry and Commerce. Product redesigned to meet institutional requirements as a result of this testing with satisfactory results. The products processing system demonstrated at the pilot plant level at the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation processing plant. Report submitted to the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation included; product formulation, processing specifications, equipment requirements and estimated costs, staffing requirements and quality control requisites. 1975: An investigation of the frozen storage stability of minced mullet blocks with and without added stabilizers. Recommended stabilizers being applied by the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. 1975/1976: Cooperative project undertaken between western region, Fisheries and Marine Industry Services, Manitoba department of transportation and Manitoba department of industry and commerce to proceed
January 26, 1977

and market institutionally, individually frozen burbot fillet portions. Pilot plant processing and marketing scheduled to commence in September, 1976. At the request of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation a canned product was developed using minced sucker as the nutritional base. Several formulations were prepared and batches submitted to the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation for market testing. Product processing specifications are being finalized. At the request of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation an evaluation of the potential of split-salted and dried mullet was undertaken. Tentative results indicate that the product would not have the shelf stable characteristics of salted and dried Atlantic white-fishes. Final storage tests currently are underway. Current investigations are being undertaken to evaluate the potential of processed mullet ovaries. This work includes caviar processing and the manufacture of "Rorasumi", a high valued Asian product consisting of salted and dried fish ovaries.


Mr. Howie: What was the total number of applications for DREE assistance from other than government or Crown agencies being considered by the Department on November 1, 1976 and, of this number, how many were (a) three months old (b) six months old?


Mr.   Ed. Lumley@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: On November 1, 1976, 312 applications for incentives under the Regional Development Incentives Act were being considered, (a) 120 applications were at least three months old. (b) 49 applications were at least six months old. Most of these applications were outstanding due to the fact that all the data and information requested from the applicant to permit the completion of evaluation had not been submitted, and/or information required from other governmental agencies had not been received.


Mr. Howie: 1.	What is the status of Manpower training programmes under the General Development Agreement between the government and New Brunswick with respect to workers in northern New Brunswick?
2.	When will the programmes start?


Mr.   Ed. Lumley@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: 1. The General Development Agreement between Canada and New Brunswick is an enabling agreement setting forth objectives and a strategy for the development of the provincial economy. Specific action programs are provided through subsidiary agreements under the authority of the General Development Agreement. Manpower training programs are provided to workers in northern New Brunswick by the Department of Manpower and Immigration. Where appropriate, these are co-ordinated
Order Paper Questions
with DREE-provincial initiatives. Assistance for the provision of special training is incorporated in two DREE-New Brunswick subsidiary agreements covering the forestry and tourism sectors. These are available to workers in northern New Brunswick.
2. These special training arrangements are in effect.


Mr. Epp: Did the Secretary of State for External Affairs state in the House of Commons on November 4, 1976, in reply to a question that representations for the release of prisoners of conscience were made to USSR officials and, if so, what were the names of the prisoners of conscience submitted by the Secretary of State for External Affairs to USSR officials?


Mr. Fernand E. Leblanc (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: The representations to the Soviet Government, referred to by the SSEA in reply to a question on November 4, concerned lists of unresolved family re-unification cases that are submitted to Soviet authorities periodically by the Canadian Government. These cases involve persons in the USSR wishing to be reunited with their close relatives in Canada. Names of prisoners of conscience are not included on these lists.


Mr. Howie: Is any review of unconditional exemptions contained in Schedule III of the Excise Tax Act and conditional exemptions based upon end use, in the same Act, under way or contemplated in the near future and, if so, what if any, is the target date for reporting?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: A Discussion Paper on Federal Sales and Excise Taxation was tabled as part of the Budget of June 1965. This paper initiated a review of the commodity tax system and provided an opportunity for interested parties to submit briefs. At the present time, analytical work related to several alternatives to the present manufacturer's tax is continuing. An analysis of unconditional exemptions and conditional exemptions based on end use is an integral part of the review exercise. Although no target date has been set, it is anticipated that the government will announce its position concerning the results of the review prior to the end of the current session of Parliament.


Mr. Bawden: Was there an overpayment of $8,929,883 from the Defence Production Revolving Fund in the 1975 Fiscal year and, if so (a) what are the names of the parties who received overpayments (b) what was the amount of each (c) what was the purpose?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: The amount $8,929,883 as shown in Note 3 of the March 31, 1976 Financial Statement does not represent overpayments
80008-1 s'/z

January 26, 1977
Order Paper Questions
made by the Defence Production Revolving Fund. Note 1(b) Accounting Policies in the Notes to Financial Statement as at March 31, 1976 states the practice on Progress Payments to Suppliers. Note 3 to the Financial Statements summarizes the position at balance sheet date and provides comparative Figures for the prior year "Reference, Public Accounts of Canada 1976, Volume II, Section 25, pages 25:13 and 25:14."


Mr. Bawden: Was there an overpayment of $11,196,046 from the Defence Production Revolving Fund in the 1976 fiscal year and, if so (a) what are the names of the parties who received overpayments (b) what was the amount of each (c) what was the purpose?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: The amount $11,196,046 as shown in Note 3 of the March 31, 1976 Financial Statement does not represent overpayments made by the Defence Production Revolving Fund. Note 1(b) Accounting Policies in the Notes to Financial Statement as at March 31, 1976 states the practice on Progress Payments to Suppliers. Note 3 to the Financial Statements summarizes the position at balance sheet date "Reference, Public Accounts of Canada 1976, Volume II, section 25, pages 25:13 and 25:14."


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	During the fiscal year (a) 1973-74 (b) 1974-75 (c) 1975-76, did the Department of Regional Economic Expansion enter into agreements with the Government of Quebec and, if so, what were the agreements and what was the total amount?
2.	Were the projects provided for in the agreements carried out and, if so (a) which ones (b) in which constituencies (c) did the Department ensure that they were carried out according to the terms of the agreement and, if not, for what reason?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: 1. (a)(i) General Development Agreement (19741984); (ii) Subsidiary Agreement on the Financing of the SIDBEC Expansion Plan (1974-1978), $30 million; (b)(i) Subsidiary Agreement on Key Highway Networks (19741979), $26,565,000; (ii) Subsidiary Agreement on Industrial Infrastructure (1974-1978), $36 million; (iii) Subsidiary Agreement on Access to Forest Resources (1974-1978), $14,520,000; (c)(i) Subsidiary Agreement on Agricultural Development (1975-1979), $24,960,000; (ii) Subsidiary Agreement on Mineral Development (1975-1979), $17,160,000; (iii) Subsidiary Agreement on industrial Studies (1976-1978), $1 million; (iv) Amendment to Subsidiary Agreement on Key Highway Networks to include two new projects, additional contribution of $53,940,000.
2. All the projects provided for in these subsidiary agreements are currently being carried out. (Data for October 31, 1976). 1973-74: SIDBEC Subsidiary Agreement: (a) 83 percent of the amount provided for has been spent, (b) Constituency of Chambly. (c) Yes. Administration of the projects under the federal-provincial agreements is ensured by a Man-

agement Committee comprising an equal number of federal and provincial representatives. This committee is responsible to the Development Committee of the General Development Agreement, which also comprises an equal number of federal and provincial representatives, for the smooth operation of the various projects provided for in the agreement. 1974-75: Subsidiary Agreement on Key Highway Networks: (a) 32 per cent of the amount provided for has been spent, (b) Constituencies of Chambly, Compton, Drummond, Louis-Hebert, Manicoua-gan, Portneuf, Richelieu, Richmond and Sherbrooke, (c) Same as 2(c) 1973-74. Subsidiary Agreement on Industrial Infrastructure: (a) 27 per cent of the amount provided for has been spent, (b) Constituencies of Bonaventure/Magdalen Islands, Charlevoix, Chicoutimi, Drummond, Gaspe, Lapointe, Levis, Lotbiniere, Manicouagan, Matane, Rimouski, Riviere-du-Loup/Temiscouata, Temiscamingue and Villeneuve. (c) Same as 2(c) 1973-74. Subsidiary Agreement on Access to Forest Resources: (a) 39 per cent of the amount provided for has been spent, (b) Constituencies of Abitibi, Charlevoix, Lac Saint-Jean, Manicouagan, Temiscamingue and Villeneuve. (c) Same as 2(c) 1973-74. 1975-76: Subsidiary Agreement on Agricultural Development: (a) 19 per cent of the amount provided for has been spent, (b) With regard to land reclamation, all the projects are to be carried out in the federal constituencies in the Montreal Plain. With regard to land use adjustment, the projects will be carried out primarily in the regions of eastern Quebec, northwestern Quebec, Saguenay/Lac Saint-Jean, Quebec City and la Beauce. (c) Same as 2(c) 1973-74. Subsidiary Agreement on Mineral Development: (a) 14 per cent of the amount provided for has been spent, (b) The projects are to be carried out primarily in the constituencies covered by the administrative regions of northwestern Quebec, Saguenay/Lac Saint-Jean and eastern Quebec, (c) Same as 2(c) 1973-74. Subsidiary Agreement on Industrial Studies: (a) 35 per cent of the amount provided for has been spent, (b) Not applicable (c) Same as 2(c) 1973-74.


Mr. Corbin: 1.	Is there a financial aid programme still under ARDA to provide better employment opportunities in low-income rural areas in (a) New Brunswick (b) Prince Edward Island (c) Newfoundland (d) Nova Scotia and, if so, what amount was granted in the past five fiscal years?
2.	What is the name and address of each recipient in New Brunswick and what was the amount granted?


Marcel Lessard: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: 1. (a) No. (b) No. (c) Yes. Since the implementation of the ARDA III Incentives to Rural Industries Program in January of 1974, a total of $1,348,000 has been granted, (d) No.
2. Not applicable.


Mr. Nystrom: Was any money paid under the brucellosis programme on cattle, held as security by the Provincial Treasurer of Alberta on a guarantee loan of $300,000, to St. Paul Livestock Auction Mart Ltd., under the Alberta Department of Agriculture, Alberta Export Agency Guarantee Loan Regulation 1973, File Number F 058 and, if so (a) how much (b) to whom (c) on what date (d) who was the examining veterinarian (e) how many cattle, if any, were involved and what type?


Eugene Whelan: Agriculture Canada is unable to identify the cattle held as security from its record and, therefore, is not in a position to provide an answer.


Mr. Beatty: In the 12 months immediately (a) prior to (b) following the signing of the Helsinki Agreement by the Soviet Union, how many of its citizens were re-united in Canada with relatives living in Canada?


Fernand-E. Leblanc: (a) 243; (b) 255.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	What was the estimated cost of the construction of the Bank of Canada Building at the corner of Bank and Wellington Streets in Ottawa, and by which companies has the work been carried out to date?
2.	Was there a call for tenders and, if so, what is the name and address of the head offices of the companies that tendered?
3.	As of October 31, 1976, what was the cost of construction?
4.	Did the government expropriate land for the Building and (a) if so, what amount was involved (b) if not (i) what was the cost (ii) who owned the land and buildings?
5.	What is the estimated cost for furniture and equipment necessary for the operation of the Building?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: See reply to Question No. 3,229 answered January 26, 1976.


Mr. Stevens: What are the terms of the loan agreement between Canada and Barbados negotiated by the Canadian International Development Agency with respect to the Seawell Airport Development Project (CIDA Project File No. 176/00081)?


Fernand-E. Leblanc: The terms of the loan agreement between Canada and Barbados (CIDA Project File No. 176/00081) are as follows: 1. Canada shall make available to Barbados a loan in an amount not to exceed $10 million (Canadian).
2.	Barbados will pay interest at the rate of three per cent per annum on the amount of the loan drawn by Barbados and outstanding.
3.	Repayment of the principal amount of the loan drawn by Barbados shall be made in 46 semi-annual installments of
Order Paper Questions
$217,391.31 each, due and payable on the last day of March and of September in each year commencing September 30, 1980 and ending on March 31, 2003.
4.	Interest payments shall be made in semi-annual installments due and payable on March 31st and September 30th in each year commencing from the first withdrawal of principal.
5.	All payments and repayments shall be applied first to the payment of any accrued interest and then to the repayment of the principal amount.
6.	Barbados shall have the right to repay principal, in whole or in part, on any date without notice to Canada. The amount of any such prepayment shall be applied first to the payment of any accrued interest and then to the installments of principal then remaining payable in the reverse order of their maturity.
7.	All payments and repayments as set forth shall be made by Barbados in Canadian dollars to the Receiver General of Canada, and shall be deemed to have been paid when received by the Receiver General of Canada.
8.	The principal of, and all interest on, the loan shall be paid without any deductions whatsoever and more particularly shall be free from any taxes, charges or other restrictions imposed under the laws of Barbados and those in effect in its territories or administrative, political or judicial divisions or subdivisions.
9.	Barbados agrees that it will negotiate, at the request of Canada, concerning acceleration of payments to the Receiver General of Canada to be made under this agreement at any time after six (6) months before the first payment becomes due and payable. On the basis of Barbados ability to service a more rapid liquidation of its obligations, Barbados and Canada shall mutually determine whether such an acceleration should take place in the light of Barbados internal financial and economic position.
10.	Withdrawals shall be deemed to occur on the dates on which payments are made by Canada either directly to Barbados or its designated agent, or to a firm or a banking institution in respect of goods or services supplied for the project.
11.	Barbados or its designated agent shall furnish or cause to be furnished to Canada such documents and other evidence in support of its applications for withdrawal as Canada may reasonably request, such evidence to be sufficient in form and substance to establish that the amounts to be withdrawn are properly related to the purposes of the project.


Mr. Fairweather: Has the Cultural Property Export and Import Act been proclaimed and, if not, will it be before December 31, 1976, so that taxpayers can take advantage of its provisions during the current taxation year?


John (Moody) Roberts: No. The Canadian Cultural Property Export and Import Act was not proclaimed during the 1976 taxation year. When the Act is proclaimed this year, Canadian taxpayers will be able to take advantage of

January 26, 1977
Order Paper Questions
this year, Canadian taxpayers will be able to take advantage of the tax provisions available under the Act for the 1977 taxation year.


Mr. Howie: Is any space at Bathurst, New Brunswick, rented by the Post Office Department and, if so (a) from whom (b) how long has it been rented (c) what amount is paid in rent?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Public Works):: No,
however space is rented by the Department of Public Works for the Post Office Department.
(a) Lessor (b)	Length of time rented (c)	Amount of RentMr. Alfred Audet	from November 1, 1976	$9,534.00 per annumFundy Line Motels	from November 1, 1976	$37,000.08Ltd.	per annum


Mr. Howie: Are any studies underway or authorized by any department, agency or consultant, into regional wage policies to ensure equal pay for equal production across the nation and, if so, which departments, agencies or firms are conducting such studies?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: The Rights in Employment Branch of Labour Canada completed in June 1976, a discussion paper entitled "A Preliminary Study on the Principle of Equal Remuneration for Work of Equal Value". This paper suggests that, within an establishment, this concept is a viable one. The paper rejects the feasibility of the application of this principle on a national or regional basis.


Mr. Howie: 1.	What percentage of the national quota for egg production is allocated to New Brunswick?
2.	Does New Brunswick produce enough eggs to satisfy the New Brunswick market and, if not, is an increase in the quota allotted to New Brunswick being considered?


Eugene Whelan: 1. New
Brunswick share is 1.976 per cent of the national quota.
2. No. Provincial shares are based upon Section 24 of the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act and not on the principle of provincial self-sufficiency.
[Mr. Roberts.l


Mr. Wenman: How much foreign currency has the Bank of Canada sold in order to obtain Canadian currency since November 15, 1976?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The Government does not consider it to be the public interest to release data on foreign currency purchases or sales made in connection with official intervention. Month-end figures on total holdings of U.S. dollars and of other foreign currencies, including those held by the Exchange Fund Account, the Bank of Canada, and the Receiver General, are released as part of Canada's official international reserves on the second business day of the following month. Corresponding daily figures are released with a one-year lag at the time the Annual Report on the Operations of the Exchange Fund Account is tabled in the House.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	What amounts were paid by way of agency fees or sales commissions in the sale of the CF-5 aircraft to (a) the Netherlands in 1966 (b) Venezuala in 1971?
2.	(a) To whom were the amounts paid (b) what was the nature of the service performed in each case (c) were properly audited invoices presented in respect to such services in each case?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. (a) None, (b) The Canadian Commercial Corporation awarded a number of contracts to Canadair Limited, Montreal, Quebec, in order to fulfill the Canadian Government's obligations to Venezuela for the production and delivery of CF-5 type aircraft. One of these contracts, inter alia included an amount of $500,000 to cover the company's direct marketing expenses. These expenses were allowable costs and in conformance with CCC operating policy dated April 4, 1966.
2.	(a) Netherlands-Not applicable. Venezuela-The
$500,000 amount referred to in 1(b) above was paid to Canadair for marketing services rendered by Dismatica Industrial C.A. Apartado Corresdel Este 4126 Caracas, Venezuela, in accordance with an agreement between them dated 29 December 1970 as amended in May 1971. (b) Netherlands-Not applicable. Venezuela-The services performed by Dismatica for Canadair were of the following nature: development of the market for the CF-5 in Venezuela; determining the suitability of the aircraft being offered and/or changes needed to make it compatible with customer needs; arranging for, and participating in, technical briefings in Venezuela and Canada including flight demonstration and logistics discussions; providing assistance and guidance during contract negotiations, (c) Netherlands-Not applicable. Venezuela-Yes.


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	Are the pesticides chlordane and heptachlor used in Canada and, if so, in each case, what (a) is its function (b) regulations exist governing its use?
2.	Is the pesticide leptophos found in Canada?
January 26, 1977

3.	Is leptophos used in Canada and, if so, what is its function?
4.	Are there any chemical plants in Canada which manufacture leptophos?
5.	If leptophos is used in Canada and/or manufactured in Canada, what regulations exist governing its use?


Eugene Whelan: 1. Yes. (a) Chlordane is used to control soil insects in strawberries, vegetables, turf and ornamentals, foliar insects on ornamentals, and crawling and flying insects in and around dwellings and non-food industrial plants. Heptachlor is used to control narcissus bulb fly on bulbs. Use is allowed by permit only, (b) Regulations under Pest Control Products Act.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes. Leptophos is used in Canada primarily for cutworm control in tobacco. There is also some use for cutworm control on vegetable, cereal and oilseed crop seedlings and for certain foliar insects on potato, cabbage and sugar-beets.
4.	Leptophos is not manufactured in Canada, but is formulated from technical material imported from the U.S.
5.	Regulations under Pest Control Products Act.


Mr. Masniuk: Does the government hire taxis to deliver letters and other first-class mail in the National Capital Region and, if so (a) how often (b) what is the estimated cost per year?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of Treasury Board):: Letters are normally mailed through the Post Office. Hand deliveries, when made, are normally carried by messengers. Treasury Board has not issued a directive on what transportation method should be used. Each department decides therefore on the most cost-beneficial method. Costs are not readily available.


Mr. McCleave: By year since 1956, what was the number of pensioners helped by the Halifax Relief Commission 'in connection with their injuries from the Halifax Explosion and, in each case, what was the (a) total amount paid to such pensioners (b) amount or total of assets available for the fund?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Number of Pensioners
Year	General and Eye Disability Pensioners	Widows and Dependents	Amount Paid	Amount Available1956	126	50	$ 81,701.54	$1,082,628.501957	125	45	$ 82,393.40	$1,039,973.801958	121	42	84,835.60	1,041,713.841959	118	35	87,055.90	1,144,693.981960	116	29	82,705.20	1,098,536.201961	113	28	82,020.60	1,066,188.271962	111	28	76,711.00	955,000.001963	106	24	76.308.40	878,000.00
Order Paper Questions
1964	102	20	76,371.05	894,000.001965	100	19	79,031.60	913,000.001966	99	18	77,387.60	885,000.001967	95	18	77,232.60	836,000.001968	92	16	101.990.00	1,155,954.001969	85	14	96,690.00	1,085,712.001970	83	11	91,215.00	1,033,376.001971	81	10	89,050.00	949,447.001972	78	8	82,250.00	913,594.001973	70	6	89,995.00	827,032.001974	66	6	103,094.76	1,032,940.001975	64	6	110,810.08	1,021,910.001976*	55	6	111,091.88	1,126,950.00
* After June 1, 1976, these pensions were paid through the Canadian Pension Commission.


Mr. Forrestall: In regard to the Argus LRPA replacement contract, what firms in each province in Atlantic Canada will receive government contracts and what are the jobs and amounts estimated to be involved?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: The CP-140 Acquisition Contract between the Canadian Government and the Lockheed Aircraft Corporation incorporates "Industrial Benefits" provisions for $932.6M of work to be placed with Canadian industry during the period 1975-1995. Consequently, benefits resulting from the CP-140 will in large measure be as a result of sub-contracts from Lockheed or certain of their major U.S. suppliers and not Government contracts per se. While Lockheed is urged to allocate this work, wherever practicable, in such a manner as to ensure all regions of Canada benefit to the greatest extent possible, it is under no obligation to do so. However, Lockheed has demonstrated utmost co-operation in this regard to date and as a result orders of significant value have already been placed with two firms in the Maritime Region. These orders are with Enheat, Amherst (current value of $2.0M with a total potential value of $11.0M) and IMP, Dartmouth (current value of $0.5M with a total potential value of $2.5M). There is every reason to believe that numerous additional orders will be placed by Lockheed in the Atlantic provinces as the program continues to develop.


Mr. Jones: 1.	When will the vacant judgeship in the Provincial County Court, Moncton, New Brunswick, be filled?
2.	Has any consideration been given to appointing an English-speaking Supreme Court Judge for the Moncton area?


Stanley Ronald Basford: 1. When the Governor in Council approves an appointment. Suitable candidates are being canvassed.
2. No vacancy exists for a Supreme Court Judge.

Motion for Papers


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, if question no. 154 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately. Once again, the reason is the very lengthy nature of the answer.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	For the Fiscal year 1975-1976, what contracts for professional services were let (a) for studies, surveys and analyses into present or future policies, programs or information analysis, and their efficiency and effectiveness (b) into the examination of the administration or internal operation of the Treasury Board?
2.	How much was committed on each contract and to whom?
3.	What were the comparable figures for the Fiscal year 1973-1974?
Return tabled.


Ralph Goodale: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notice of motion for the production of papers No. 47?


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 47-Mr. Crouse:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all documents, minutes of meetings, telegrams, etc., relating to the discussions between the government and the governments of the United States, France and Denmark, with regard to the proposed 200-mile limit.
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse).


An hon. Member:: Stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining notices of motions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, December 21, 1976, consideration of the motion of Mr. Chretien that Bill C-23, to facilitate conversion to the metric system of measurement, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, on December 21, prior to the recess, I made some comments regarding metric conversion in Canada. I attempted to make a point I should like to repeat today because of its significance. This government has shortchanged farmers in western Canada by not having an adequate dialogue regarding the effect this resolution will have on them. There has been no opportunity for those involved in the production of food, with land use and ownership, to state their case. In addition, Mr. Speaker, we must consider what effect this measure will have on the reeves and councillors of the many counties in western Canada. Let me bring to the attention of the House a point made by the secretary-treasurer of the county of Red Deer, as reported in the Red Deer Advocate a few days ago:
The system of land registry is going to be a "hodge-podge" of hectares and acres, Jim Masson, secretary treasurer of the county of Red Deer, told council Tuesday.
New land titles under recent federal legislation will be registered as hectares, Mr. Masson said. But old land titles will still remain registered as acres.
Thus, a block of land could well be registered in both hectares and acres, Mr. Masson said.
"If you transfer a title now in acres," he said, "it will remain in acres. But if you subdivide, the land will be in hectares."
Computers with land registration records in their banks will have to be programmed for the addition of hectares, Mr. Masson said.
When the county of Red Deer goes metric, there will be a considerable cash outlay for speed signs. This will likely come to $3,000 for speed signs in the county alone, Mr. Masson said.
Distance signs will have to be changed to kilometres instead of miles, another expense.
And weights on highway weight scales will have to be in kilograms rather than pounds.
Later the same article reads:
Mr. Masson said he wondered if it would be possible to replace a mileage sign or speed sign when it got damaged with a metric sign, over a period of two to three years. If the signs were replaced all at once, it would be expensive.
Mr. Masson said he has written the department of municipal affairs to see how they propose to make the change to metric.
County bylaws also would have to be changed to conform to metric, he said.
The point I am trying to explain is that the government was hasty in the implementation of this program. As an alternative, I should like to make the point I made on December 21. Let me again quote from an editorial in the Western Producer:
January 26, 1977

Britain learned that it would go metric in 1965. It has been 11 years since then and the weights and measures bill-as it is called-is still battling its way through the House of Commons.
According to a story in the business section of The Sunday Telegraph, November 7, entitled, "Metrication Muzzled and Delayed", a number of changes have been made to the bill as it fought its way through house committees. In order to ensure its progress the British government has conceded one major point: it has agreed that the mile, the inch, the pint and the gallon will be preserved and exempted from statutory metrication. Apparently the common market rules and regulations make it clear that such exemptions can be made.
I know my colleagues have much to say about this matter. I realize I took a considerable time in the House on December 21 and I appreciate the opportunity of bringing these major concerns of the people I represent once again to the attention of the House of Commons. I thank you for that opportunity, Mr. Speaker.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I, too, will be brief. I am concerned about conversion to the metric system as it affects land use in western Canada. Not only will it affect the western Canada bread-basket of the world but it will affect registration of titles involving the oil and gas industry which uses what we call the Torrens land titles system.
The question of whether we are going to convert acres to hectares now or tomorrow is very serious. At the turn of the century and before, surveyors came to western Canada-men like Palliser and others-with survey crews to survey land in western Canada into quarter sections, half sections and sections, into townships and municipalities, with correction lines to correct so that all these would be on the square.
However, the most important thing is that western Canada copied the Torrens land titles system, and I will deal with that in a few moments. Torrens was a New Zealander who as a layman came up with a system which simplified the registration of land. I have talked to lawyers in eastern Canada, particularly in Ontario, where land has been measured in chains, leaps and bounds, and lawyers there have to go back over 100 years to search titles, whereas under the registration land titles system in western Canada you can walk into provincial government land titles offices-except in the Northwest Territories-which cover British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and merely by looking at the title you can tell who owns that title and what encumbrances, if any, are against it.
If there is an encumbrance which is not registered, then that title, if transferred, goes clear to the man in question, so it was a guarantee to land purchasers or land owners at the turn of the century, when they were homesteaders, that they obtained clear title. If there were encumbrances, money borrowed by way of mortgage or from a bank by way of caveats, that appeared against the land. What I am saying is that millions of acres of land in western Canada are described by the term "acres". No one has consulted the farm organizations. As the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) said, no one has consulted the municipalities or the heads of counties. Nobody
Metric System
has consulted the farm organizations to determine whether they are prepared to accept a change.
Now let us consider cities. They are measured in lots and blocks, whether it be in Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Vancouver or Victoria. As I said at another meeting today, the only time I have heard the word "hectare" used on the farm was to name a horse Hector. I cannot assess the cost, but $100 million to change the title of those lands would be, in my opinion, small potatoes. You only have to walk into the land titles offices in Alberta, which are in Edmonton, Calgary and other central points-and it is the same in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and British Columbia-to realize what a mammoth job it would be and what a mixed-up situation it would be.
Before I deal with the history of the system, let me deal with the Turta case which involved the first oil well which was struck in Leduc in the 1940s. The adjacent quarter was owned by a man of Ukrainian ethnic origin who found that he not only owned the land but also owned the oil rights. When a search was conducted at the land titles office it was found that a clerk had made a mistake in registering the title away back at the turn of the century. The lawyer for Turta-I do not know whether it was Harold Riley, who became a judge, or another firm in Edmonton-argued that when he went to the registration system, even if there had been an error, that registration system showed who was the owner of the land and the owner of the oil rights.
Then there was an insurance fund to take care of the CPR and others who were fighting over it. That farmer was unique in that regard because the oil rights in western Canada belonged in most cases to the Crown. Many people think that in western Canada we have oil wells in our back yards, but that is like saying we have cold winters in Calgary; it is about as logical. The fact is that the Crown owns the rights. However, in that case the farmer became a millionaire overnight because of the registration system. The only reason I mention this is to show how accurate it is and how adequately it has served the people. If there were farmers here today who knew what this government is going to do in this regard, they would almost riot.
I want to deal with some history for just a few moments, because I know other hon. members represent farmers. I wish to read from "Thom's Canadian Torrens System". This book was written back in the 1920s. In fact, the first volume came out in 1912. I articled to Mr. Thom in Regina, and he was head of the Land Association for the whole of Canada. This is what he said in his book:
The Torrens system itself, however, does not acknowledge as its foundation any of these English reports-
That refers to how the British did it.
-although it would seem that some assistance from these must have accrued to the originator of the system, Robert Richard Torrens, later Sir Robert Torrens (1814-1884); however no suggestion is made or can be made that title registration simpliciter originated in Australia.
Actually, I think it originated in New Zealand.
Torrens was a layman and not a lawyer-
Perhaps that is why it was so simply done.
2416

January 26, 1977
Metric System


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I knew my hon. friends would like that.
-and no doubt some personal experience with the disastrous operation of the doctrines of equity on common-law titles together with the knowledge he acquired in his positions of collector of customs and registrar-general of deeds gave him the inspiration and the impetus to persevere in his zeal to substitute for the uncertainties and complexities incidental to a system of private conveyancing the security and simplicity suggested by the shipping acts.
In other words, bills of lading gave them the idea of this certificate of title which shows a very simple plan:
He expressly disclaims any indebtedness to the English report of 1857 and states that it only reached his hands on the eve of the second reading of his bill in the South Australia legislature. Following the South Australia enactment Torrens became the First registrar-general of titles under the act; similar statutes were introduced in Queensland in 1861, in Victoria, New South Wales and Tasmania in 1862, in New Zealand and West Australia in 1874.
In Canada the advantages of a system of registration of title, whether the Torrens system or the kindred English system were also receiving consideration during this period and in British Columbia "a system peculiar to itself' but incorporating in part the indefeasability principle was introduced by legislation into Vancouver Island with the enactment on January 18, 1860, of the Land Registry Act, 1860. While the draftsman of this statute had before him the South Australia draft bill of Torrens' Real Property Act which had reached British Columbia through the colonial office, the Land Registry Act, although a statutory offshoot of the Torrens system, nevertheless was adopted to meet the peculiar circumstances of the colony and the prevailing English system of conveyancing. Registration was not made compulsory because of the confused and chaotic state of land titles-
I do not need to go on and read any more, but I should say that that system developed into the land titles system-and I want to repeat that when Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba were surveyed before the turn of the century, they were divided into sections, 36 sections in a township, so many townships in a municipality-


Mr. Neil:: Thirty-six.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Thirty-six in a municipality? Yes, and six in a township.


Douglas Charles Neil: Thirty-six in a township.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, I said it correctly; 36 in a township and so many townships in a municipality. That system was very simple. Every piece of land is surveyed by a quarter section; every piece of land is surveyed by half sections or by sections. Today, farmers in the west own half a section, a section, or several sections. You can go readily to a land titles office and check.
What will happen when we change this? Who will computerize this when you change half sections into hectares or quarter sections into hectares? I do not know what the cost will be. My guess is that it will cost around $100 million. Also, it will confuse the whole system. Why should this be thrust upon western Canada? Have we no say in these things? As I understand it, they have the same system in Montana and the western states, but they are exempting land. This has been thrust upon the Canadian people without any real thought. I see my hon. friend shaking his head. The fact is that this

government's philosophy is: because we think it is good for the people, we want you to have it. It is the castor oil treatment which they used to give to the kids. "Open your mouth, it is good for you, and we will pour it down your throat." They are giving the castor oil treatment to every farmer in western Canada. They are giving it to the people engaged in the oil industry and to all the people living in the villages, towns and cities.
When I raise my voice this afternoon-and I do not speak very often in the House-I say that this has been a great political mistake, an expensive mistake at a time when this government is floundering with a deficit of $6 billion or $7 billion and does not know where to turn for money. That is another reason why there is trouble in the country and with the provinces. Who will pay for land adjustment in Saskatchewan, Manitoba or Alberta? Did the provincial governments agree to it?


Ralph Goodale: Absolutely.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You say one thing and do another. Were they consulted? If they were consulted, I say it is a political mistake. You can say they are in agreement. If so, then table the letters; let us see them. My friend from Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale) seems to be upset. We know why he is upset; it is because he knows that back home in the towns of Radville, Ceylon, and others-I could name a few towns in his constituency because I was there before he was-he will have trouble with the villagers and the townspeople. He knows he will have trouble, and that is why he is grumbling.


An hon. Member:: He is running third in the poll in Assiniboia.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I would not have given him that much credit. He is only running third; that is too bad! If the hon. member for Assiniboia thinks the metric conversion will not be an expensive disruption, if he thinks it is politically good and economically sound, let him stand in his place and say so, so that every voter in Assiniboia will be able to judge him at the polls.


Ralph Goodale: Stick around for an hour, and I will.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I will be here. I have made my point and I have explained what is wrong. I trust that the government will see the insanity of that in which they are engaged.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I think the point has been very well taken: I am referring to the point made by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) and the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) on the question of the landholding system. I am a supporter of the worth-while characteristics of the metric system because it is simpler and better. However, the fact remains that what we are rushing to do here in the House with such indecent haste is because the machine companies of the world, the automobile companies of the world and, in general,
January 26, 1977

the international companies of the world are dominating all the parliaments in the world.
If they are going to trade internationally, as they do, it is much simpler and cheaper for them to use the same system of weights and measures. So let us not kid ourselves about this bill. It is simply a device for the convenience of and the saving of money of the companies engaged in international trade; that is all. I am not the only one who believes that. The government House leader, who is present in the House now, was asked yesterday about the business of the House. Let me read his answer. He said:
I propose to call the metric conversion bill because of the necessity of having it in effect for the convenience of the grain trade by February 1.
It is purely for the convenience of the grain trade and so that they can save money, not for the person who goes to the store to pick up a package and finds that it is .738 millimetres and wonders what that is. This is simply a device to try to get the United States and Canada in harmony in its measuring system with the rest of the world. We have to accept this pressure because we want to trade in the world. I point this out with that background.
The main point we should take into account is the one which was made in the early stages of the debate by the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Mclsaac). I do not have his words before me at the moment, but in effect he said that he was disturbed because this was bureaucracy gone overboard in its enthusiasm to get something done. There has been no consultation with the people, no education of the people-I will come back to that in a moment-that would stop a tremendous uproar developing, particularly among the people who will be hard hit one month from now, the farmers of western Canada.
Comments have been made already about the tremendous cost of the conversion, the disruption of changing all our titles from acres to hectares and of changing the traditional ways of the farmers who have been brought up to know certain measurements. All these things have become part of the culture of our people, and suddenly this change is hitting our farmers first.
Here is the point I want to make. We have been selling grain in the world markets for a long, long time and we have always used the metric system in the sale of our grain. We have sold our grain by tons. This measure is to save a little time and money for the people who sit in their nice, warm offices with electronic calculators on hand. They change the figures from bushels to tons and from acres to hectares, and put it in the figures that world markets use. We will not sell one bushel of grain more because of this legislation, and we will not get one cent more for the grain. All we will do is make it more convenient for the grain trade so that their paid employees do not have to change the figures. The farmer sitting in his truck, or stepping out of the windy, draughty elevator will have to make the changes. He will have to work in decimal points. The elevator agent standing beside him freezing in that draughty place will have to make the changes.
Metric System
We are making this change just because the grain companies want to rid themselves of the inconvenience that their people have. I understand that most of the elevator scales are being switched over already. I saw the permit book last year, and hectares have already appeared. I am going to put it down to the practical type of politics. Most of us recognize the advantages and the extra efficiency that will flow from the metric system, but I think we should try to put it across in a democratic, educational way, rather than issuing edicts from above. It is no use trying to crash into the consciousness of the farmer or the painful consciousness of someone, whose eyes have seen better days, trying to read the contents of a package. My sympathy does not go to the people who work in offices, with all the apparatus they have at hand to help them; it goes to people who have to struggle with this problem under adverse conditions.
I should like to suggest how we could make this change more readily acceptable, Mr. Speaker. First of all, I do not think there is any question that if the farmer knows that by using the word "tonnes" the bookkeeping is going to be easier: he will be amenable. It is not too difficult to think in terms of tonnes, because you simply multiply or divide by the number of pounds in a metric tonne and get back to the old figures very quickly. It is the question of hectares and acres that will cause trouble, because Canadians are used to working with acres. Hardly anyone could tell you how many square feet there are in an acre, because it is not necessary to know that. The farmer knows what an acre is, and the word is part of our culture.
There are many examples of how this situation is handled in other countries. In the People's Republic of China, a country new to the world grain trade, there are 500 million people on collective farms of 30,000 acres or 40,000 acres. The men in the production brigades who work these farms still speak in the language of their forefathers for 5,000 years and uses the term "mu" when speaking of land area. Yet officials at the county or national level speak in terms of hectares. Somewhere along the line the conversion was made, but the 500 million people on the land were not asked to abandon a 5,000-year old phrase for one that does not make for one more bushel of production or any increase in price.
I would suggest that if the government were wise in regard to this bill which deals with four or five acts, they would eliminate the substitution of "hectares" for "acres". It does not make very much difference in conversion to the metric system; it is simply a bookkeeping item. It will be difficult for the farmer who is used to adding so many ounces of pesticide to the mix for an acre of land to convert that to millilitres per hectare, without making a mistake. It is all very fine in a nice, comfortable office, but it is a different proposition trying to make such calculations in a cold field over a seeder. A mistake in calculation could ruin a crop, and that would certainly give economic urgency to the complaints we may expect to hear. I do not suggest that we in the opposition should move an amendment, but surely common sense would tell the govern-
80008-16%

January 26, 1977
Metric System
ment to remove the clause which deals with hectares: it does not achieve anything.
On the subject of weight measurement, the tonne should not cause too much trouble. I do not think the farmer will complain any more than he has about the conversion to Celsius from Fahrenheit. When calculations for scientific farming have to be done on the spot without the help of a computer, there will be difficulties. However, I suggest we should continue using "acres" for another couple of years and gradually get around to "hectares".
Second, Mr. Speaker, as part of the public relations I think we should provide a simple equation instead of sending out the large books and pamphlets of instructions such as I have here. This one in my hand is for measuring the number of tonnes in a load of wheat. It is publication No. 1606 issued by Agriculture Canada. Instruction No. 2: reads
Here is how it works: calculate the depth of 1 tonne of grain in your truck box. Using the truck box in example 1 -
You refer back to example 1 some place else which is hard to find. It continues:
-we have a floor area of 12.89 m2 that will be loaded with wheat that has a volume of 1.30 m3 per tonne.
Mr. Speaker, 90 percent of the farmers I know will be confused right there.-It continues:
To find the depth of 1 tonne of wheat, divide its volume by the area of the truck box floor, or in this case:
* * m =	0.10 m (or 10 cm)
12.89 m2
For a truck box like the one in our illustration, a measuring stick marked at 10 cm intervals will indicate how many tonnes of wheat the truck holds.
Very helpful and practical! If farmer was not confused already, he is up the creek now. It goes on:
You can use a brodm-handle or some other straight stick to make a measuring stick for each crop you handle.
Whether is barley, flax, rapeseed, wheat, oats or any other crop, you need a different broom-handle. It continues:
Remember, each stick is good only for the truck (or bin) for which it is made.
For each bin, for each truck, the farmer needs a broom-handles scaled off at 10-centimetre intervals, and also for each type of grain. The poor man will be going around with a big load of broom-handles. I think I have read enough, Mr. Speaker. The farmer out in that cold, draughty field in the springtime or in ten below weather loading his grain, who is striving to keep the decimals clear in his mind, will demand explanations from the candidates in the next election. I think I have said enough to make the point.
Serious-minded people in this House and in the country will, I think, accept the fact that we have to move to the worldwide metric system because there is only one world of trade. But let us go forward with some compassion for those who have to do the work in the fields. The examples I have given show the uproar that will come from the rural areas. I think the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley was right when he said it is

as bad as the proposed gun control regulations. No Liberal candidate or member of parliament will want to appear at a public meeting where these matters come up. These things are imposed upon us by bureaucrats, Mr. Speaker, which has the reputation for trying to control and regulate everybody. It does not help at all to impose these silly things upon us, but, Mr. Speaker, we do want to be completely metric. I know that we must change some of our terminology and keep up with the times.
As a young lad I remember, when out hunting in the bush with older men, that one of the older fellows in the party got a little warm and said, "Across that ridge, about a mile away over the hill in the bush, there is a Swedish chap who is homesteading. Let's visit him." We climbed over the ridge and went to the homesteader's shack. One of the older men in the party said to the Swedish lad, a great, tall, burly, blonde-headed giant, "Oily, have you got a crock?" Oily looked him squarely in the eye and said, "I don't know what's the matter with you Canadians I came to this country 15 years ago and it took me 15 years to learn to say a jug'"-he pronounced it with a "Y", "yug"-"and now you call it a crock."
I am trying to make my point, clear with this illustration. We must change from "yug" to "crock"-at least we must make such changes occasionally. But, for heaven's sake, take it easy on the poor guy on the production side of the economy who is trying to sell his product in a convenient and profitable fashion.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, may I begin my remarks in this totally non-partisan debate by suggesting that the government should consider some of the sensible suggestions made by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton). If the exceptions he suggested were made, I do not think the implementation, in principle, of the metric system would suffer.
I think most members of this House can see the value of the metric system. It is a simple system, based on multiples of ten, and is used in many countries of the world. Basically, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain summed up the feelings of many people who come from the prairies about the difficulties the metric system will cause, particularly to the farmers of this country. Our farmers will need to learn the new system. However, I do not foresee any great economic advantage which will accrue to our farmers and to society from the difficulties and torment of learning the new system. As the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain noted, we shall not sell more wheat just because we adopt a new system. The adoption of this bill as it applies to farmers will facilitate matters somewhat for international companies trading in grain and the like. But it probably will not help us sell more grain. If the government is serious about selling more grain, it should talk seriously to governments around the world about reviving the International Grains Agreement which lapsed, so far as this country is concerned, several years ago.

We shall feel the effects in the next few weeks of the lack of such an agreement when we witness how the price of grain on world markets fluctuates according to the whim of speculators. The price will not be governed by any kind of rational pricing system or agreement. Surely it would be better to enact measures which would facilitate exports and trade, instead of fooling around with the metric system.
Our farmers face some very real problems involving the metric system. As has been said before, farms on the prairies have been surveyed: we have talked of farms in terms of square miles, sections of land, quarter sections, and so on. We have townships, correctional lines, sections, and the like. We have used such measurements deliberately and carefully over the years. Those measurements form part of the culture, not just of the farmers in western Canada but of all the people, particularly those on the prairies. Changing such a system will mean a great deal of difficulty for individual farmers and, as well, much additional cost for all farmers and society as a whole.
I should like the minister responsible to tell the House how much our metric conversion will cost the farmers of this country. How much will the total conversion cost? Can anyone estimate what the cost will be to the public treasury? I think we should be concerned about cost, in our capacity as parliamentarians. We must ask if this bill will bring to the people of Canada tangible benefits, or will the cost of conversion outweigh the benefits? I am thinking particularly of the farming segment when I say that. Will it be worthwhile for farmers? As others have said, conversion will create great anxieties and problems for farmers. Many farmers have approached me and said, "If the new system is adopted in the spring, how will I adjust my seeders and drills? When I go to seed my crop, how will I adjust my drill to seed in hectares, since the drill has been set up to seed by the acre?" Perhaps the minister can explain to the farmers of western Canada what they ought to do. I am not being political; I am merely repeating something which I as a member from western Canada have heard time and again from farmers of all political stripes.
Let me raise some further points of concern. If the farmer is to deal in hectares, how will he know how much fertilizer to put on his land, since he has been used to dealing in acres? Or how will he know how much chemical spray to use for any given number of hectares? These are questions of real difficulty for farmers. If the farmer buys land, how can he judge how many hectares will fit, say, into a quarter section? Our whole system of measurements will go through a radical change. I suspect that farmers, more than any other group in society, will be affected in a practical way by the changeover to the metric system. They are concerned about the coming change.
Some farmers can visualize the benefits of the new system. For instance farmers, as well as others, can see the benefits of the adoption of the Celsius system with respect to temperature. We all know that changes must come, and do not argue the point. However, farmers will face all kinds of practical problems with the changeover. They will face effects which may be
Metric System
completely different to those affecting the rest of us as we change over to the metric system. We shall need to become accustomed to thinking in terms of hectares instead of acres, kilometres instead of miles, litres instead of gallons, and the like. As well, the farmer must deal with his tools and educate himself about the various sizes of tools he needs to repair farm machinery or perform other functions on the farm. Clearly, farmers face some very real difficulties.
May I make a suggestion? If the government is not in favour of providing certain exemptions, as suggested, let it at least provide some program of education for farmers and some program of assistance and compensation whereby farmers could be compensated for some of the economic losses they will endure. One cannot compensate farmers for all the agony and torment they will go through in learning the new system, but one can compensate them for the economic loss they will suffer. I appeal to the government to consider allowing some of the exemptions which have been suggested.
Speaking personally, from my somewhat limited knowledge of farming I suggest that if we could exempt certain aspects of farming we would make conditions a great deal easier for farmers and farm products for the country would probably be cheaper. That would still not hinder the implementation of the metric system in this country. Surely that is the least we can do as parliamentarians.
My last point is this. I have the impression, which is not wrong, I think, that farm organizations and municipalities across the prairies-indeed, right across Canada-have not been adequately canvassed and consulted about the effects of metric conversion. I think the government ought to pause a moment, ought to consult farm organizations, rural municipalities and other affected communities and ask what they think about the government's program. Let it ask them for suggestions which might change the program without hurting the principle of what the government is trying to achieve in the long run. I do not think that would hurt the government and it would not hurt the process of metric conversion. I do not think you can impose something like this upon the people of this country and expect them to sit idly by like sheep or puppets.
We have a lot of problems in this country. Many are caused by governments and bureaucrats making decisions in offices without any comprehension of what the result of the decision will be on the farm or in the factory. The implementation of something like this may seem a little thing to city people. They say, "Can't the farmer convert something from an acre to a hectare?" That is the attitude of a lot of people. If you keep making decisions like that, how can you expect the people to have any real pride in Canadianism, a fervour to do something for the country, or a spirit of commitment? How can you expect the people of this country to be productive and pull together like people in some other countries if you constantly put obstacles of this sort in their path?
If we were to create some difficulties that in the end would help the people, I am sure they would understand. However,

January 26, 1977
Metric System
doing something like this will not build up their morale. It will not make the farm population more productive, nor will it make them more enthusiastic Canadians. They will not have any more love for Ottawa, federal institutions and federal structures at a time when this is badly needed. The government could get around part of this by pausing at this time, going to the prairies and saying, "This is what we plan". They should consult the people there. There should be input from farm organizations and local governments. The government should honestly be open to some changes in possible exemptions, or perhaps a longer staging of the implementation of the metric system. If the government went there with that openness and willingness to listen, the people of rural, western Canada would be very happy and gratified.
We need that type of thing. People must genuinely feel that federal institutions are working on their behalf, working with them and not doing things to them. Too many people believe that the federal government and eastern Canada are doing things to them because of all the inequities in this country. Without rambling on, I plead once more for the government to take a second look at some parts of this bill as it pertains to western agriculture, with a view to having input from the farmers and others who are affected. They should look seriously, as human beings, to making some sensible exceptions to our conversion to the metric system.


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few comments on this bill in spite of the fact that metrication now seems firmly on the road to being established in this country, and the fact that any debate at this point is more or less superfluous. Metrication is pretty well a fait accompli and we only have the trimmings to put in place.
What disturbs most Canadians is the fact that they have had very little to say about metrication or the implementation thereof. This was alluded to by my colleague from Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) and my good friend the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom). One reason is that the decision to proceed with the metric conversion program has been essentially by government decree. As such, it has been imposed upon Canadians in a rather arbitrary manner. Hon. members will recall that the principle of metrication was brought forth in a form of resolution, not a piece of legislation.
I want to make reference to the well-reasoned and rational approach to this piece of legislation by my colleague from Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain who placed on the record in a very articulate way some of the very serious shortcomings this legislation will impose upon the producers of western Canada and, indeed, the agricultural industry as a whole.
This bill is a sort of omnibus bill. It sets out to amend some nine different existing statutes, all aimed at facilitating the metric conversion process. I understand there will be something in the order of 81 more statutes which will have to be amended in order to accommodate the metric system.
I want to touch briefly on three different areas. First, I want to comment on the statements made by the minister respon-

sible for this legislation upon introduction of the bill. Second, I want to deal briefly with the impact of metrication upon the consumer. Finally, I want to deal with the impact of this piece of legislation and, in fact, the whole metric system, upon the agricultural sector.
In his address to this House when introducing this bill, the minister stated that the United States, our biggest trading partner-indeed, the largest trading partners in the world are the United States and Canada-is proceeding very rapidly with its program of metric conversion. I take issue with that statement. From my examination of the subject and from reading some of the debates before Congress and some of the American press, it does not seem as though the United States is proceeding very rapidly. My understanding is that they are still considering the pros and cons of the metric system and have been doing so since 1790. They still have a great deal of ambivalence toward this system. My conclusion is that their approach to metrication is something less than aggressive. In other words, they are not proceeding with this "go for broke" attitude as we are in this country.
It is interesting to note a survey conducted by the National Federation of Independent Business, a very large, independent business organization which has representatives in every part of the United States, some 400,000 members. The survey revealed that their membership was pretty well split on whether America should go with metric. At best, it seems very unlikely that total conversion will ever be a reality in the United States of America.
Many are concerned that conversion will endanger American jobs by making the U.S. more vulnerable to imports. Many workers have pointed out that they will reluctantly take early retirement rather than learn the new system. Farmers will never be ardent advocates of the metric system because of its cost and inconvenience with relatively no advantage. With this background, and having regard to this reaction and attitude toward the metric system-and, I might say, the lack of any broad support-the United States has opted for a cautious, rational plan in the conversion process without any compulsory features such as we see in our program. They have opted for a voluntary conversion program. This is alluded to in many articles which I have examined over the course of the past couple of weeks. For example, the Wall Street Journal of August 20, 1976, states as follows:
Last November a divided Congress shied away from mandating that the United States switch to the metric system of measurement, compromising instead on a national board to co-ordinate voluntary conversion.
In this way, the metric system will proceed in an orderly and rational manner. It will be imposed as industry becomes ready for it, and not before. In that connection, it is obvious that in the United States it is industry rather than the government which has been the leader. Some of the largest industrial concerns, particularly those engaged in multinational activity, have been leaders in the conversion process. Naturally, when they embark upon conversion their suppliers have to follow suit. The program is being implemented in an orderly manner with the minimum amount of disruption and economic impact.
January 26, 1977

There does not seem to be the compulsion in the United States which we have associated with this program in Canada. Persuasion, yes, but compulsion, no. I presume the multinational corporations in the United States are leaders in the conversion program because they are probably in the best position to pass along the cost involved in the form of higher prices to the consumer. Let there be no mistake; the consumer will ultimately bear the cost of metric conversion. No one has yet produced to me one scintilla of evidence that the metric system will benefit consumers. I have yet to see any cost analysis done in that connection.


An hon. Member:: What is a scintilla?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The cost of conversion remains a highly significant factor. For example, General Motors which is a leader in the conversion process, has suggested that the cost will amount to about 1 per cent of gross sales over a period of ten years. But smaller firms, machine shops, small manufacturers and retailers suggest that their costs will escalate by as much as 20 per cent or 30 per cent in a period of a year or two during the firms' conversion process. These firms, however, state that they find no problem in adopting the system as far as cost is concerned, because they simply pass the cost along. One would think that in these times of inflationary pressure such increases would be regarded as a significant element in contributing to increased living costs and that we might contemplate slowing down the conversion process during a period of so-called restraint. I do not believe tha imposition of metric conversion is an effective way of fighting inflation. I repeat- the consumer will end up paying and he will be frustrated in the process.
I turn, now, to consider the impact this legislation will have upon the agricultural industry. I should point out, first of all, that farmers are not only producers; they are also major consumers. So this program will get them in the neck on both counts. While they constitute only 6 per cent of the national population, they spend more than $5 billion on materials and services associated with food production. No less than 45 per cent of Canada's gross national product is related to agriculture and allied industries.
As I stated earlier, and as explained by industry spokesmen both in Canada and the United States, the cost of conversion will merely be passed on, and to this extent farmers, as consumers, will be faced with increased costs. But there is an essential difference. Farmers do not enjoy the luxury of being able to pass on additional costs to consumers at will. They have to take what the market gives them. So we can expect the bulk of the conversion cost as it relates to agriculture to come out of the pocket of the farmer. If we consider the net farm income picture, which shows that in 1976 income was down by some 16 per cent compared to 1975-and net income for 1977 is expected to be below that for 1973-we cannot expect producers to be very enthusiastic about the prospects of additional costs associated with metrication.
Metric System
In addition to the element of cost, there is bound to be a great deal of inconvenience and confusion. We have come a long way in agriculture in terms of the standardization of repair parts-bearings, chains, hoses, and things of that nature. The advent of the metric system simply harms that trend. New tools will be required. The service industry, an important component of the agriculture industry, will be seriously affected. Inconvenience and confusion will be impossible to avoid, yet they are not accompanied by a single assurance of ultimate benefit to the agricultural industry either in the short or the long-term.
The minister told us that most of the farm organizations had endorsed metrication. This is surprising to me, because when those of us who represent rural constituencies talk to our constituents we find that people at the grass roots show little enthusiasm for the program. I would suspect that the government has consulted only the leaders of farm organizations and that those leaders have failed adequately to canvass their membership. Anyway, to judge from the evidence I have received, they certainly could not have consulted the producers.
The United States farm bureau, which is the largest farm organization in America, said in 1975 that adoption of the metric system did not have very high priority among its leaders. As far as the Canadian producer is concerned, it seems to me that on the international market we have been doing quite well in selling our grain to the elevator in bushels which are later converted into metric tons for sale abroad. The United States has also been doing quite well. The fact is that when customers need our grain they will buy it whether it is in bushels, pints or litres. The farmers, as I have pointed out, will be strangled with the cost of changes which will have to be made in the elevator system, such as scales modifications, with no significant benefit to them.
The other point I want to make is that the report on metric conversion and the grain market issued by the Canadian Livestock Feed Board points out that while we in Canada are going to convert from bushels to tonnes, the Chicago board of trade, with which we compete and with which we compare prices, will be continuing for some years using the Imperial measurement system. Therefore, this will again create confusion and additional cost. The grain transport industry, we are told, will continue for years under the present system. That point is also made in this publication. The report reads in part:
The grain transport industry will continue to use the present system for some years yet. No official date has been set for the rail and road transport systems to go metric in freight rate quotations.
So we will have a situation where trucks that come to the elevators will be weighed using the Imperial system of measurement, which will be converted to metric for payment and storage purposes and then will have to be converted back to the Imperial measure to accommodate our rail transportation system. It seems like a lot of extra work and a lot of bungling.


Mr. Kempling:: There may even be another bill.

January 26, 1977
Metric System


Donald Frank Mazankowski: My colleague says there may be another bill. In the transportation field I have already pointed out that the changes are not due to take place for many years. It could be five, ten or two years. It was pointed out earlier that the knowledge producers have gained in terms of using the descriptions and the cliches is all part and parcel of the tools and culture of the trade. This knowledge will now all become essentially redundant.
Some 40 pages of documentation will require study on the part of elevator agents. They have been going to school in order to become proficient in the metric system. One really must ask who is going to gain. As my colleague pointed out, it certainly will not be the producer. If anyone, it will be those associated with the grain trade. I do not think we need go as far as converting bushels to tonnes. We have done well in the past selling bushels to the elevators, using metric tonnes in the international marketplace.
This leads me to another point, and that is the conversion of acres to hectares. Anyone who has lived in the west will know at a glance that this proposed conversion will be very serious in terms of geography, tradition and, indeed, our culture. It has been pointed out by my friend from Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) that it will be a tremendous task to record land descriptions and make the necessary legal adjustments in registering land.
In that connection it is interesting to note, on examining the testimony given before the Congressional Senate committee in 1975, that the United States has made a firm commitment not to proceed with the conversion from acres to hectares, and I think this is a very important precedent which we should consider during the processing of this piece of legislation. It seems to me that if use of the acre is realistic in the United States, it certainly should be realistic in this country. If we convert to the hectare and the United States stays with the acre, then in terms of comparison and in terms of dealing with our great agricultural neighbour to the south we will be at a disadvantage. I would urge, as other speakers have, that the minister seriously reconsider the change from bushels to tonnes and from acres to hectares. I think we should provide this added flexibility in this legislation to accommodate a very important industry in this country, one which represents a very important economic sector of Canada. I do not think that the average farmer has really sensed the significance of metric conversion. When he wakes up and finds out just what it all means, Mr. Speaker, he is going to be very, very angry and disappointed.
While the metric system may dominate the world, there are still a number of valid exceptions in those countries that have adopted the metric system. For example, I understand that while Sweden uses the metric system, use is made of inches and feet in the construction of homes and in the lumber industry. I understand, as well, that in South America measures of pipe and lumber are still those of the Imperial system. I wonder, for example, what will happen in the aviation field, which essentially is an international field. Will it convert, or become one of the exceptions as well?

It seems to me that if we are interested in practicality and in common sense, we should give this measure further thought. I suggest that if we fail to do so, when the full impact of this legislation becomes known to the farmers the fat will really hit the fire and we will hear a lot of resentment of, and opposition to, the metric system. I hope that in the course of this debate the minister will seriously consider some of the very realistic and positive suggestions that have been advanced.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for an opportunity to say a few words in this discussion with respect to metric conversion in Canada. I will direct my remarks particularly to an area of great importance to my part of Canada, the grains industry with which Bill C-23 is largely concerned.
Change is always difficult to accept, especially when it affects important aspects of our daily living and our ways of earning a livelihood. People, quite naturally, develop a very strong attachment to familiar things and processes and there is predictable reluctance to something different. The metric conversion process is a classic example of this. Because of the magnitude of the change which is involved in this process and the impact which it will have upon people involved in the grains industry, particularly farmers, I am naturally concerned about the proposals contained in Bill C-23, and believe it is absolutely essential that the facts of this matter be clearly understood.
I 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.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ralph Goodale: Other speakers have referred to this but in most cases have tended to play down that fact.


Mr. Stewart (Marquette):: Have you been talking to any farmers during the Christmas recess?


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, hon. members opposite suggest that consultation with farmers is required. Without any suggestion or encouragement on their part, I spent a great deal of time not only during the Christmas recess but before, talking with farmers in my area about this proposal before I finally made up my mind on the subject. I did not find the degree of antagonism which they perhaps see, or perhaps it would be more proper to say that they would like to see and would like to foment.
As I was saying, this measure has a very broad and virtually unanimous base of support in the organized farming community. In the first place, I would point to the remarks of the

minister responsible for small business who is handling this bill for the government, who on December 21 of last year, at page 2230 of Hansard is reported as indicating that metric conversion in the grains industry has the active support of organizations such as the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the National Farmers Union, the Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta Wheat Pools and the United Grain Growers. All of these are direct producer or producer-owned organizations and they are most anxious to see this resolution in place by February 1, 1977. Many of them, indeed, have made vigorous representations in this respect.
It is important, as well, to note the vehicle which has been utilized by the grains industry to deal with the process of conversion. I refer to the hardworking and longstanding metric conversion committee of the Canada Grains Council under the chairmanship of Mr. Earl Baxter, a well-known and widely-respected grain man. The membership of the council has been involved very directly in the positive work of that council's committee. That membership includes 28 separate firms and organizations associated with grain production, marketing, transportation and handling across Canada, many of them based in western Canada.
I will not take the time of the House to run through the full list of groups in the council, nor will I name at this time the very distinguished list of officers and directors of the council. I would simply point to the involvement of such organizations as the Canadian Seed Growers Association, the Hudson Bay Route Association, the Manitoba Farm Business Association, the Palliser Wheat Growers Association, the Rapeseed Association of Canada, the Union of Manitoba Municipalities and the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, and so on; and those are in addition to the CFA and UGG and others which were mentioned before. These are groups and organizations which form an active working base of the Canada Grains Council Committee.
I should also point out another interesting and important point which demonstrates the kind of support for metric conversion among western grain organizations and producer groups. While certain of these groups have, for their own reasons, withdrawn from the Canada Grains Council in other respects-and here I refer to the three prairie pools which indicate a very large farm membership including a large majority of prairie producers-these organizations have, nonetheless, participated fully in the metric work of the Canada Grains Council committee, despite the fact they have withdrawn from the council for other purposes. I think that is a significant point in demonstrating an important basis of support for the thrust of what is proposed in Bill C-23.
Let me now, Mr. Speaker, make a second general point which relates to what is going on in this connection in the United States. No doubt we in Canada, as others have pointed out, are ahead in this regard. We are years behind the rest of the industrialized world, but we are somewhat ahead of the United States. The conversion process is going on there as well, but in that country it is not yet as far advanced as it is in Canada.
Metric System
The general impression of many people closely involved with Canadian agriculture, and particularly with grain, is that there is no question about the United States intention of converting and the likelihood that it will be moving at an accelerated pace. Indeed, if you look at developments in the United States with respect to metric conversion in the last year to 18 months, you can see that acceleration beginning to develop, compared, for example, to what was happening two, three or four years ago. As well, for comparison purposes it is important to remember that the general commitment in Canada to conversion took place at least six years ago. It is obviously important for Canada to be slightly ahead in this connection, and not slightly behind. Therefore, I would suggest that the order of things is correct in this regard.
I want to deal, as well, with the question of cost, which has been mentioned, or more particularly with cost savings. A lot of people have been skeptical about the matter. In response to that skepticism I have asked the committee of the Grains Council to demonstrate clearly where the cost savings are, and it has produced a detailed analysis which indicates an annual saving to the grains industry in the order of $1 million. Over the long term I suggest that is, indeed, a significant saving. It is of a magnitude that should seriously be considered by those who would oppose this particular development.
Having said all that, may I clearly express my concern, which I share with my colleague the hon. member for Bat-tleford-Kindersley (Mr. Mclsaac) and, more importantly, with farmers about the impact of this change. I think the minister responsible for this measure is also sensitive to these concerns. I was glad to hear members opposite today, like the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) and the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton), express clear support for the principles involved in our conversion to the metric system. I was concerned that we might be up against a stone wall over there in this respect, but I see that is not, in fact, the case. I am grateful for that degree of receptivity and I, for one, am prepared to examine all suggestions for ameliorating any negative consequences which could possibly result from the conversion process. Indeed, I have been active in making suggestions in this direction to the minister and government officials involved.
In particular, I agree with the general suggestion about a thorough and effective educational program for everyone affected in the context of Bill C-23, but particularly for farmers. I also agree with the idea of as gradual a conversion process as seems reasonably feasible, given the state of developments at the present moment. In that context we have to remember the very significant work that has already been done by the Canada Grains Council committee, work that now stretches back over the better part of six or seven years and which has had a great deal of support and active involvement from the farming community across Canada, particularly the grain industry in the west.
I believe that on this side there is a willingness to hear and understand the concerns which have not only been expressed today and on other occasions when we have debated this

January 26, 1977
Metric System
measure but have been expressed in other places and at other times by farmers in particular. I think there is still, as well, a willingness to respond in a sensitive and sensible way. I will be active in working with the responsible minister in this connection and I hope that members on all sides of this House will adopt the same kind of positive approach to this very difficult and delicate issue which can, I think, by the admission of all involved-whether they may in the short-term oppose or support it-work in the best interests of all of Canada, including the grains industry.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, it is a little difficult to find new things to say on this subject after the number of speeches that have already been made, but I would like to add a few comments in order to voice my concerns and reservations about the proposal. We all accept the fact that many eminent individuals, institutions and organizations have urged at one time or another that a system common to the whole world in respect of weights and measures should be adopted. Perhaps one can think of many advantages when looking at this from a theoretical point of view. It is perhaps fair to say that no one has strongly challenged the benefits that may be achieved by a system which is similar or the same throughout the world.
One could make some suggestions with regard to practical considerations. Theoretically, one could accept easily enough that there should be advantages if everybody talked the same language in so far as weights and measures are concerned, but I suggest that practical considerations make it rather impractical to hope that such can be achieved without great difficulty in many areas of Canadian life.
The area I would like to stress is the psychological effect on people; if nothing else, the fear of the unknown, so to speak. There is a fear of being taken out of a system with which everyone is familiar and being cast into an unknown situation. There may be some psychological disadvantages resulting from being tossed into an unknown world and out of the area where one feels comfortable. It has been mentioned that weights and measures in pounds, inches and so on have indeed become part of our very culture and part of the custom and way of life we enjoy.
I suppose to illustrate one might say that it would be very useful if in this world everybody spoke the same language. No doubt there would be advantages in terms of communication between people. Perhaps that could even prevent wars, and it certainly would contribute to greater understanding between people and nations. However, that is not being done. Nobody is promoting very seriously the idea that because there are so many advantages all nations should abandon their native tongues and accept some common language which everybody in the world could speak.
The reasons are obvious. One reason is that people have a psychological attachment to the language with which they have been living all their lives and to which they are accustomed. There is a psychological attachment to the culture they

have enjoyed, so they simply refuse, in spite of a long list of advantages which I am sure anybody could envisage, to adopt a common language the world over. I think that same argument, perhaps less forcibly, applies in so far as trying to accept or impose on the world a common system of weights and measures.
I am not convinced that the scientific superiority which it is theorized would occur from this conversion would indeed be an advantage or should, indeed, prevail over the established commercial customs and practices with which we are all familiar; and if there is a scientific superiority of some sort which would prevail, the government has been very weak in making the case and many questions remain unanswered.
We have not seen any kind of cost projection in Canada. We have seen some studies from the United States, but we have not seen any studies here as to what the long-range benefits might be. There has not been a cost-benefit study done weighing the benefits against the disadvantages or weighing the disadvantages over whatever benefits might occur in the long run. We know from American studies that the Americans expect their metrification to cost somewhere around $50 billion. If we calculate, on the ratio basis, their population to ours, I suppose it would be safe to assume that the cost to Canada would be somewhere in the vicinity of $5 billion. We have to ask ourselves, from the economic point of view, whether today, when Canada is experiencing severe inflation and severe difficulty with its economy, we should be pushing so fast and so hard to impose this additional $5 billion price tag on the people of Canada.
Of course, it will be the people of Canada who will be paying, not this government nor any of the hon. members opposite who have spoken and who are so convinced that we must rush into this and complete the conversion by 1980. I think it has to be shown that a balanced study of some kind has been carried out with regard to the long-term benefits as opposed to whatever short-term expediency might be envisaged by the government in jumping into this change.
In deciding to proceed with this metrification program, what costs must be considered? I submit that the list is a very long one. In terms of cost this conversion will affect virtually every citizen of the country. The people who are involved in the manufacturing industry seem to be convinced that this is a good thing. I submit perhaps that they are the only ones who are. Perhaps only those in the manufacturing sector of our economy can show clearly that there will be some sort of advantage, the advantage being that their products will be more easily interchangeable and perhaps, therefore, more easily exported to other countries of the world where the metric system is already in effect.
However, we must think of the machinery and tools of production which must be changed. If we are talking about agriculture, new scales in grain elevators will be required. At service stations new gas pumps with new numbers will be required. At home new gas meters and water meters will be required. On highways there will need to be new highway signs. Clothing manufacturers will need to use new clothing
January 26, 1977

dimensions. The construction industry will require new plans and specifications and will have to operate under different systems. All these things add very substantially to the cost of production. I submit that in view of those costs at a time when we are trying to increase our productivity-and the government admits that is the most successful way of beating inflation in the long run-we will wind up with a slowdown in productivity while everybody tries to adjust.
Just to give an example of the cost of machinery, a meatpacking plant in my constituency which does a moderate business estimates that just to change the scales and other machines the plant is looking at a price tag of about $3,000. Perhaps to a government which deals with billions of dollars that does not sound like very much, but to a small business operation it can be a significant amount.
There are a whole bunch of other considerations which we call intangibles. We will have to learn new words and how to use them. We will have to try to get our brains adjusted to new numbers. If a person is running a lumber yard and somebody comes to his place of business and asks for 5.08 x 10.15, 305 centimetres long, what do hon. members think he will be asking for? Suppose he asks for a nail 6.349 centimetres long. What should he be given? We will be ordering sheets of plywood 1.22 x 2.43 metres. All these are simply figures-but they just do not register.
I see that my hon. friend who used to be an Edmonton Eskimo has stepped out of the House temporarily, but when I was listening to the other debaters I looked at him and thought of Miss Edmonton Eskimo. When we recall that last year's Miss Edmonton Eskimo's qualifications were 36-24-36, that has some immediate impact on the minds of Canadians. If her qualifications were expressed as 92-61-92, I am afraid that the impact would be far different and less meaningful.


An hon. Member:: Wow!


Paul Yewchuk: I am saying this to try to emphasize the disruption which will occur to the registering processes in people's brains which have been imprinted there during the course of the experiences of their lifetimes. Suddenly to take this, to scrap it all and try to re-educate everybody is totally unrealistic. It just cannot be done. I practiced medicine before I came into politics. Hospitals converted a long time ago, but when I was in medical school-which is not that long ago; I graduated in 1960-we still thought of temperatures in terms of Fahrenheit. After, metrification, when nurses phoned me to tell me that a child's temperature was 38 degrees, I always automatically asked her to tell me what that was in Fahrenheit. They had a chart with Centigrade on one side and Fahrenheit on the other. Thirty-eight degrees does not register on my brain, and I submit that this is a problem which is common to all aspects of Canadian life. When someone is given a number from another system, it does not register. That person does not know for sure what it means, so we wind up with the possibility of all kinds of technical people making all kinds of mistakes and, indeed, some of those mistakes could be very serious.
Metric System
I have mentioned already that during the process of trying to learn new measurements there is bound to be a slowdown in production. You can take the example of a mechanic working on a motor. He sees a nut of a certain size and he automatically reaches for the right wrench. If you give him a metric nut- no pun intended on any member on the other side of the House-he has to examine all his wrenches to select the one which fits that nut, and it is no longer automatic. The effect is that he becomes less productive; it takes him longer to repair the motor because he has to spend time selecting his wrenches, something which was automatic before.
We have to ask ourselves this question. Because of this loss of experience, so to speak, how many mistakes will be made in industry, science, medicine, in the bakery or in the kitchen? The housewife will no longer be able to use her cook book. She is familiar with a cupful as a measurement, but the new directions will be in millilitres. This should not be taken as a reflection on housewives, but they will be at least as confused any anyone else trying to get used to this new system.
The question, then, is: When you are looking at the price-tag of metrification, how do you calculate the cost of psychological factors, the intangible discomforts which we will have to face?
I submit it is almost impossible to put a price-tag on these intangible but great discomforts, and the very roots of our thinking will be taxed and shaken.
I would be inclined to agree with the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) that the world is moving in that direction and indeed that many countries in the world are using the metric system. But if we are to accept it, we should take a little more time and perhaps begin in the schools, in grade one, to teach the system to the children first. In a generation or so the changeover will be very simple, almost automatic. But we are rushing to complete it by 1980 and because of that all kinds of unnecessary new stresses are being placed on the minds of Canadians.
I think it would be useful to look at this question from many points of view. One of them is that there may be an advantage in converting to the metric system because anyone who uses machinery of a certain type will have to change over and buy new machinery and different kinds of equipment. So there will be a sudden stimulus in the manufacturing sector to produce new equipment which will be required. Perhaps this is an advantage at a time of high unemployment, but the disadvantages are indeed very great.
A proper profit and loss assessment of this proposal has never been made in the Canadian context. I have already touched on the reasons in part, namely, that the concept of a simple addition of the benefits which may occur, or of the greater cost which may be involved, is simply not feasible because the intangibles are virtually impossible to assess. Some attempts have been made in the United States, for example, to communicate with industry, with labour, with agriculture and with scientific groups, asking each one of them to outline what they construe to be the benefits and the disadvantages in terms of cost. From what I can gather, the manufacturing sector

Metric System
thought there might be advantages. But the advantages of this system are not obvious, and the disadvantages in the immediate future can readily be seen because it is in the immediate future that the conversion and the added expense have to take place. The advantages will not be visible for a number of years. The estimates for recovery of the cost in the manufacturing sector show that recovery will take place only after about 15 years.
In agriculture, for example, if it takes as long as 15 years to recover the cost of conversion to the metric system it is a long time. Many farmers do not have 15 years on a farm. The way things are today, with costs escalating beyond belief, this added cost could well be the last straw that breaks the camel's back and drives an ever greater number of farmers off the land into another area where the net income is much more attractive.
Let us consider the construction industry and how it will be affected. Today everyone is trained in the system of Imperial weights and measures. I am speaking of planners and architects who know what the standards specifications are in feet and inches when they measure plywood, windows, doors or door-frames. All these things are part of their existing knowledge. If you start measuring everything in centimetres it will cause mass confusion and require mass retraining. It is quite easy to see that the labourer's costs will be very great. He will have to buy new tools. If he works for an employer, his tools might be bought for him, but if he is self-employed he has no such option. Then there is the question as to who will bear the cost of retraining.
Coming back to what I said before, metrication means, in effect, loss of experience. With one fell swoop you take an experienced mechanic and make him inexperienced because he has to learn a new system. His productivity will decline because of his loss of experience in his trade. What is the dollar value of that, and who will absorb it?
I wanted to make reference to non-manufacturing businesses, to the service industry. From all the studies I was able to make it is obvious that no great advantages will accrue to the restaurants. The owner will be at a disadvantage because he will have to buy new tools, new scales, and so on. In no way will that increase his productivity or his return. He might have to retrain his cooks and kitchen help to think metric, but he will not thereby increase their productivity. You cannot bake any more pies by using centimetres. So in the service industry there will certainly be added costs but no visible advantages.
Let us consider the educational system. There are all kinds of things to consider there. If you talk to the chairman of any school board in this country and ask him how his budget stands, virtually all of them will tell you that their budget is grossly overstrained because of rising costs. However, all the textbooks will have to be converted; and who will absorb the cost of rewriting the textbooks? In the area of education there is clearly an advantage when teaching mathematics to children. We all accept the fact that it is easier to learn the concept of decimals and the metric system than the old system.

But that is overbalanced by the cost of converting textbooks and all the equipment used in schools.
I should like now to touch on the subject of agriculture, Mr. Speaker. This is an area of primary production where the costs are very obvious. They are variable, but I think substantial in terms of making alterations to machinery and so forth. There are many disadvantages in the area of agriculture, but no advantages to be seen regarding productivity. So many tons per hectare of wheat does not bring about higher productivity than under the old system. If you give a horse two kilograms of oats instead of half a gallon, the horse is not really going to eat any less; in order to keep going he will require the usual amount. If you measure the milk given by a cow in litres, it is not going to give any more milk than if you measure it in quarts. From the point of view of the farmer there is little to be gained and a lot to be lost in addition to the intangible, psychological disturbances to which I have already referred.
I should like to make a brief reference to civil aviation, Mr. Speaker. It is very important in my constituency which covers one-quarter of the province of Alberta. Charter airlines flourish in the northern regions and, indeed, air is the only practical way to travel. We have to think of the safety factor here. At present a runway is so many feet long or wide and the wind so many nautical miles per hour. But suddenly pilots are being told about metres of ground ahead and that they are so many metres from the end of the runway. Their safety could be jeopardized by this in the same way as in the French-English dispute of the air controllers who want to use their own language. Some people say this would not be safe because of the possibility of mistakes. The same applies to measurements of speed, elevation or dimensions of the runway, and so on.
All these things are presently communicated by the old system. It seems to me there is great possibility of a decrease in the safety of civil aviation unless a vigorous effort is made to retrain the people concerned into thinking metric. Air controllers would have to be retrained, and we members may have to stay here all the time because we will be afraid to travel to our constituencies in case the air controllers are not able to make the necessary calculations.
I should like to quote from a New York Times article which appeared in the Globe and Mail of December 20, 1975, which describes what is taking place in the field of civil aviation with regard to metrification. The article reads:
Civil aviation is one field where no one is hurrying to switch to metric, because in no other area is safety so dependent upon measurement. The foot, pound and nautical mile system is used in all but communist countries for runway dimensions, in calculating distances and altitudes, for visibility and pressure gauges and in some thermometers.
We have heard nothing from the other side about this particular problem. With that, Mr. Speaker, I conclude my remarks and hope that somebody over there was listening and will provide answers to these questions before we rush this bill through the House.


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I suppose if the Liberal party wanted a good example of why their popularity has been sagging lately, this would be as good a place as any to start-their method of introducing metrication. Everyone I have spoken to has some doubts about it. I do not know where the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale) has been, because in my long experience of dealing with farmers, no matter from what part of the country, I find they usually speak the same language. But the language I heard when I was out west in the last few weeks apparently was entirely different from the language the hon. member for Assiniboia would have the House and the country believe they are speaking.
A lot of reservation was expressed about this subject both in my constituency and outside, and I cannot believe the situation is any different in his constituency. Perhaps he has trained some of his supporters to accept that any policy enunciated by the Liberal party has to be good for the country. Perhaps they bow in subservience to him and do not register dissatisfaction because that might not be popular with the government. If ever the government needed friends, it is now; so this might be the time for them to come forward and then the government can downplay the amount of criticism they are getting about this measure.
I hear people say this is another case of the east shoving something down the throat of the west. That is bad enough, but I also hear the comment-which will perhaps affect members here more than the comment about the east dominating the west-that because the metric system is perhaps more synonymous with the French, that is why they are introducing it. These are comments I have heard, that perhaps it is a French Canadian who decided it is good for us, so we will have to proceed with it.


Mr. Douglas (Bruce-Grey):: Oh, come on.


Stanley James Korchinski: I am simply registering a comment I have heard. If it excites the hon. member, perhaps he should understand there is another part of this country. He should perhaps understand that there are members who do not represent manufacturing areas, and he should understand that this bill will only really benefit manufacturers. It does not really matter to the manufacturer, in terms of total exports, whether you read the temperature in Celsius or in Fahrenheit. A lot of people comment on that, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps it is not a complicated matter to measure degrees of frost, but a lot of people say the other system was better because they had a greater variation. From minus 40 degrees Fahrenheit to 108 degrees Fahrenheit there is a variation of 150 degrees, but from minus 40 degrees Celsius to 37 degrees Celsius there is only an 80-degree variation. What annoys a lot of farmers is that the manufacturers have said, "This is good for us" and have sold the government on the idea.
True, a large portion of the world is under the metric system, but in this country farmers, consumers and even
Metric System
manufacturers have been used to dealing with equipment of standard sizes. What will you do in future if you want to replace the old hubcaps on your car? Will the manufacturer have them in the right size? Remember, not all people buy brand new cars. What will happen when you want a new windshield but the manufacturers do not make them in the old, standard sizes? You couldn't replace it by taking an old windshield from another car. The government is oblivious to our concerns. Manufacturers say that the new system will be good for them but never mind the cost to the consumer, and the government has gone along with them.
Unfortunately, debate at this stage is useless. However, useless as it may be, we as members have the right to register our protests. We ought to have registered them five, six or seven years ago when the idea was first submitted. Perhaps the government would have approached conversion differently if we had made our views known. Perhaps it would have got some sort of guarantee from manufacturers with regard to standardization of parts. That would have been better than having this new system shoved down our throats. What happens when you want to buy a tire? Today you ask a tire dealer, "What is the size of that tire?" and he will say, "It is a G-78," or something like that. I can understand what one means when he talks of a 7.50 x 15, or 8.00 x 15, or even 8.25 x 15 tire, but I do not understand what is meant by a G-78 or an H-78 or J-78. Not only can the tire dealer not tell you anything about it, but the salesman is no help. So what is the result? There is utter confusion. This is just another case of planned obsolescence without beneficial result.
We have been told to speed passage of this bill because the grains industry needs it. I am not so sure about that. There was a sign on an elevator back home saying that the elevator was to be closed as of January 31 in order to convert to the metric system. Obviously, the operator intended to close and convert; he had all the forms prepared and he was getting ready to convert. Therefore, whether we pass this bill or not, he will have to convert to the new system. What is he to do if we do not pass this bill? Throw away all those forms?
There is no point in this exercise. The Liberal party suddenly realized that conversion was being criticized. What has it done? It has treated this question as it treated bilingualism and said, "This is good for the country. You must have it." When it implemented its bilingual policy it sent civil servants only two years from retirement for language training. It sent them on total immersion courses. The program cost millions of dollars, but cost was not a factor. Now we find that the program is not working. The government is using the same approach with the present measure.
Some members have already alluded to the confusion which will be created in the minds of farmers. For instance, some of our farm drills are spaced six or seven inches apart. If you want to test the accuracy of your drill, you know that you will plant so many kernels after you move so many feet. Now you are about to confuse the farmer by introducing variations.
Take the case of rapeseed. You must be most accurate when planting rapeseed; perhaps you need not be quite so accurate

January 26, 1977
Metric System
with other grains. Mistakes can be costly. Farmers have talked to me about their sprayers. The sprayer jets are spaced 20 inches apart. Farmers know their height, they know the volume of the sprayer tanks and they know how much spray they should be using for a given area. If you put too much in, you will burn the crop; but if you put too little in, it is a waste of time. Therefore, you must be accurate. If you make mistakes, you end up losing money. With the unfamiliar metric system this will happen.
Has the government received any assurance from manufacturers that replacement parts will be readily available in years to come? Much farm equipment will still be good for many years to come. I suspect that the answer is no, you will have to scrap the whole machine for want of a part. I have seen it happen. I remember what happened to imported German tractors which were used out west. Within two years those tractors were sitting in the bush, rotting because you could not buy replacement parts for them. I remember the Long tractor which came on the market about 25 years ago. I don't know who Mr. Long was; I never heard of him before or after. All I know is that some farmers were sucked in to buying that machine. It went off the market and farmers lost money. Has the government considered this aspect, or does it not care?
Obviously, the government thinks this is good for us. Mr. Speaker, the bulk of our exports, approximately 70 per cent, go to the United States. The government tells us that we are going to break into the world market. Well, you are not going to break into the world market simply by converting. Actually, we stand a good chance of losing our existing United States market, and I will tell you why. The Americans do not have to buy from us. They can manufacture their own materials and are already doing so. They are going slowly with their conversion. They may consider it worth their while to spend a little more money and buy from sources other than Canada. At least they will be assured of getting standardized parts. Many customers in the Unites States will think twice before buying from Canada.
What are we doing? We are to be in the forefront of a change. This is to be a great step forward. I do not know how many farm units or farm orgnizations were consulted, but I do know that they did not have many meetings across the country or, if people from those organizations attended the meetings, they did not understand what they were all about. I can tell you that many did not understand what was going on. Therefore, how could they explain it to others?
The government too, has encountered problems. But did any representative of the minister go out to these organizations and try to explain the ramifications of the programs, its pros and cons? Not in this case. If there was ever an occasion when we needed an educational program, this was it. It is not so much that people cannot be retrained, because I am sure they can. We must give them time and you must assure them that conversion will bring benefits. Out west our roads are spaced according to certain plans. Roads running north and south are one mile apart; roads running east and west are two miles apart. Try giving the minister directions, using the new system,

to get into a farmer's place. Instead of telling him to go so many miles east or west, you will tell him, "Go ten kilometres south, plus a little bit, one kilometre east, plus a little bit, then turn right and go five kilometres, plus a little bit." Where do you end up?


Mr. Benjamin:: Lost.


Stanley James Korchinski: Talk about confusion! Mr. Speaker, the municipalities are not going to rebuild their roads simply because we pass this bill. They are not going to take one step in that direction. In other words, the present road system will stay in effect regardless of any legislation this government tries to pass.
I was talking about the sprayer. The farmer does not want new equipment: he still wants to be sure that he is using a gallon, a half-gallon, a quart or a pint. He does not care what it states on the container; he intends to continue measuring in the way he has always done. Chances are that he will be right using the old method. The government system is like everything else: when the government suggests something is good for you, do the opposite and you are sure to come out on top.
I can assure the minister and the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale), who accepts this program with open arms, that I am getting an entirely different point of view. For example, those working in hospitals will have to use a new measurement for doses of medication. Some say they would rather quit than take the chance of giving someone the wrong amount of medication. This is not a laughing matter. It is said that they can be retrained, but the fact is these people are afraid to take on this responsibility. How can they be sure?
All this government has done is set a deadline. As far as the west is concerned, this system should have been started 70 years ago. At that time a lot of people came from Europe. They understood the metric system. It would have been a simple matter for this country to have accepted this system at that time. However, they were forced to learn a new system. Their children were trained in the new system. Now they have forgotten the old metric system. Had governments accepted the metric system at that time, there may not have been confusion with land surveys, and so on.
Possibly the minister does not have anything to do. For lack of something better to do he feels he should pilot a bill through the House. I will give him something to do. I suggest that he go to the drugstore to purchase a tube of shaving cream. There he will find at least three different measurements-ounces, millilitres and grammes. Without the aid of a computer let the minister figure out which is the better deal. I defy him to do that.
When you think you get a good deal shopping at a grocery store there is nothing worse than finding that two doors away the store has a much better deal. This is how the housewife feels. Is the minister monitoring what is going on? I am sure he is not because it is too trivial. However, if enough of this is going on it will affect the total cost of production. That is what
January 26, 1977

this is all about. If the cost of production goes higher, how can you compete?
There was talk about the 2x4. An architect or engineer may be familiar with one system and then suddenly find himself having to use another system. This will necessitate checking and double-checking. Some architects charge a very stiff fee. If their staff drags simply because they want to be doubly sure rather than have an inaccurate calculation, who will pay? Imagine trying to estimate the cost of a project. If there are variations, who will take the blame? Obviously, the standard excuse will be that somewhere along the line somebody goofed.
No matter how you look at it, there is only benefit for the manufacturer. We have heard the one-sided argument that it is good for us, that it will be good for Canada. It has already been pointed out that grain will not be sold by the bushel. However, it will still be necessary to convert. Talk to the elevator agents. Boxcars will still be measured in terms of bushels. They will have to be converted, even with the new system.
There is no point trying to convince us that this system will be good. We do not want to be sheep, particularly if we have to be led by this government. Anything this government does must be checked and double-checked. That is one of the reasons it takes longer than is sometimes necessary to get legislation through.
Business of the House


Ralph Goodale: I am glad you admit that.


Stanley James Korchinski: We do not think like the Liberals. We have to check and double-check to see what they are up to. I want to mention one other matter. The manufacturers have obviously convinced the government that we should standardize according to the world system. However, I have seen parts that are identical. Obviously, a lot of time must be spent comparing.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to ask the acting House leader to inform us what business is intended for tomorrow.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the intention would be to continue the discussion on Bill C-23 relating to metric conversion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, January 27, 1977