1977-06-09

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, June 6, consideration of the motion of Mr. Marchand (for Mr. Chretien) that Bill C-23, to facilitate conversion to the metric system of measurement, be read the third time and do pass.
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, rather than speak on the bill at this time I would like to raise a point of order with you, sir, that I believe you have already said you would consider. In view of the fact that in my opinion this House should not be asked to deal with the bill in its present form at this time, with your permission, sir, I would like to return to the discussion that has taken place in the House on the bill. I would refer, first of all, to Hansard of April 21, 1977, at page 4844 where the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) asked the following question of the minister:
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Small Business. In view of the great concern that still exists amongst people in western Canada regarding the changes from acres to hectares and bushels to tonnes, as evidenced by the many letters that are being received by the western members, and I assume by the minister himself, and in view of the importance of cabinet solidarity, I wonder if the hon. minister has any intention of withdrawing the metric bill?
The Minister of State for Small Business (Mr. Marchand) answered:
Mr. Speaker, at this stage we have no intention of withdrawing the bill. I know that the Minister without Portfolio has some concerns. I will be listening to them because he knows very well what the farmers want.
The point I want to make is that the minister said he would be listening. Further to that, as reported at page 5226 of Hansard of May 3, 1977, the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) posed the same question:
[DOT] (mo)
Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of State (Small Business). In view of the acceleration of widespread protest emanating from the producers of western Canada against the conversion to metric in the grains industry, is the minister giving any consideration whatsoever to the various representations he and other members have received and has he now reached the conclusion that the producer organizations upon which he relied when considering this particular piece of legislation did not actually reflect the wishes of the producers in western Canada?
The reply of the minister was this:
Mr. Speaker, without accepting all the premises of the question, I want to say to the hon. member that I have been listening to the representations members made to me and the government, and particularly more recently to the representation made to me by the Minister without Portfolio from Crowfoot and . .. other members of parliament on this side of the House from the prairie region. A decision has been made not to proclaim that section of the bill on metric conversion relating to the grains industry ... until after further consultation ... It will not be until further consultations have been held with the grain industry, and especially the farmers.
Then the hon. member for Vegreville said the following:
Can the minister outline to the House what form these consultations will take? What mechanism does the minister have in mind for ensuring that the views of the actual producers will be taken into consideration? Will he rely on the hon. member for Crowfoot, or will he consider as well representations made from my side of the House?
The minister replied:
Mr. Speaker, the exact mechanism has not yet been decided. I assure the hon. member opposite that I will be happy to receive suggestions from him on how he feels this matter ought to be dealt with.
Then as reported at page 5230 of Hansard, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) said:
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It relates to the business of the House. It arises out of the incredible answer that was given by the Minister of State responsible for Small Business with respect to the government's plans for the metric conversion bill.
On the same day I made a representation to the Chair as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order related to the one raised earlier by my House leader. It has to do with the metric bill. It really concerns me that the President of the Privy Council should suggest that the bill is going to pass third reading and that the Minister of State in charge of small business should tell us that it will not be proclaimed until such time as negotiations have been carried on with the business and agricultural communities. Does this mean that the House of Commons will become so irrelevant that after third reading hon. members will not have the opportunity to participate in these discussions? Does it mean there will be changes made between the time of third reading and the time at which the bill is proclaimed? This is an important point. I believe it arose during the question period. It is one with regard to which Your Honour will be called upon to rule in order to ensure that the House is not completely emasculated.
You, sir, said the following:
If the issue arises in the way the hon. member has described, there may be some judgment which I shall be called upon to make, and I will make it at that time.
The point I am trying to make is that if this bill leaves this place, it has to go to the other place to be proclaimed, but the Minister of State for Small Business (Mr. Marchand) has suggested that there are going to be some changes made, and if this happens the House of Commons will be totally emas-

June 9, 1977
Metric System
culated. Further, I would like to refer to Beauchesne's citation 426 as follows:
In order to give legal force to a bill, or, in other words, make it a statutory enactment, the following legal and constitutional conditions are imperative:
(a) That the bill has passed through all its stages in both Houses and is consequently ready for the royal assent. If it should receive the assent of the Governor General and be afterwards discovered not to have passed its proper stages in both Houses or be otherwise not in conformity with the constitutional procedure governing such cases, it is so much waste paper.
I contend that this bill is not in proper form, in view of the statements made by the Minister of State for Small Business who has stated in this House that he intends to make changes to the bill after third reading. I contend that this cannot legitimately be done.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I simply point out to hon. members that this bill provides for quite a number of different possible proclamation times. Some clauses are to come into force immediately and a number of others are to come into force by proclamation. It is a somewhat unusual bill in the sense that the proclamation clause and the possibility of proclamation is repeated in relation to different parts of the bill. So it was contemplated that there might be different proclamation times. What the minister did was indicate a process we would follow before we actually proclaimed particular clauses. It is our intention and our hope to have a good number of clauses in force and in effect at a time which is orderly. Some are to be proclaimed immediately upon the coming into effect of the law. That is why it makes good sense to proceed with the bill at this time.
It is useful to recognize that hon. members opposite, in the debate, did not, as I took it, oppose the basic move toward metric conversion. Indeed, they supported it again and raised an amendment in relation to timing more than anything else. Of course, we will be giving that further consideration in the form of consultations before proceedings. But the bill is still very relevant and very important, and in those terms I think there is in no way an abuse of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: This point is raised at this stage as we enter into further consideration of the third reading motion. I must say that on its face there is nothing extraordinary in the language of the clauses which have been referred to by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang). The fear that the bill might be changed in a period of delayed proclamation is one which I do not fully recognize, because I cannot visualize-at least, it is not clear to me-how the bill could be changed at any time except by amendment, once the bill is passed. Therefore, if such substantive changes to the bill are to be made, they would have to be made by amendments which would have to be introduced and- put through all stages here as an amending bill, as would be the case with amendments to any other statute.
The decision on proclamation is not a new aspect of our procedure. As the Minister of Transport has pointed out, not very many bills have more than one proclamation clause; but it is quite ordinary that bills have the kind of clause which

appears at the end of this bill at page 8, which reads as follows:
This section shall come into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation.
That is not an extraordinary clause, by any means, and as I understand the fear of the hon. member, it is not that in a delayed proclamation of certain clauses there would not be time for consultation only on the subject of the date of the proclamation itself, but that those consultations might lead to suggested changes in the bill and that those changes might be made after the bill had been passed but before it was proclaimed, which somehow would be an affront to parliament. I cannot fully recognize that, because my understanding is that the motivation for this is to receive representations solely on the actual date of proclamation.
Again, the principle of metric conversion is not the problem, but the phasing in of metric conversion as it applies to different areas of the country is a matter upon which further consultation might be had. If, indeed, the hon. member is right and those consultations go to substantive matters, then it seems to me that we should know what they actually are. I am anticipating, and we are into hypothetical territory to a certain extent because without knowing exactly what suggested alterations there might be, and if they are in fact substantive changes to the legislation, it would be readily agreed that we would have to do that by amendments which would be brought before the House for consideration.
I do not know if I have alleviated the concerns of the hon. member. If there is a point that I have failed to recognize fully or have failed to deal with, I think it would be in order for the House to proceed at this time with third reading discussion.


Thomas Gordon Towers: I do not wish to belabour the point, Mr. Speaker, but perhaps I did not make myself clear. I am not so much concerned about the timing of the royal proclamation, as about the fact that changes will be made in this bill in relation to tons, hectares and bushels. The minister has stated that he is going back to the grains industry and the farmers to see what they want in this bill. The issue is that these changes be made, otherwise the bill will go through in its present form, which is not acceptable to much of the agricultural industry in western Canada.
As the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Horner) said last night, we are dealing with the very culture of western Canada when we deal with acres. The land has been measured in acres and sections. This is what the minister is talking about when he goes back to the farmers and the grains industry. To my knowledge, there is no way that these substantive changes can be made in the bill after third reading and prior to the royal proclamation. It is an insult or an affront to this House to be asked to do this. I think the logical way to handle the bill would be to send it back to committee and have it divided.


Mr. Speaker:: With respect, as I understand it, the hon. member is making a representation that he is entitled to make by way of amendment to the third reading motion and he
June 9, 1977

wants to bring the attention of the House to that. He expresses a point of view that is quite legitimate but, with respect, I do not think the point has procedural application. Whether it is wise to proceed at this time, whether it is a proper approach, whether it respects the point of view of western farmers in respect of a cultural heritage that is very dear to them, are all arguments that might be addressed for or against the bill or by amendments to the third reading motion, or, indeed, by amendments when the bill has had three readings and is in the Senate.
Those are valid considerations and arguments for or against the bill or an amendment to the motion for third reading. From a procedural point of view, however, I can only say, again, that the approach of a proclamation date that follows some time after three readings in both Houses is not an extraordinary procedural ramification. From a strictly procedural point of view, therefore, I do not see grounds upon which I can arrest progress of the discussion on the bill at this time.
The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) has the floor on the substantive argument on the motion for third reading.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if 1 could have your permission for the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) to lead off debate. I could be recognized later as a speaker on third reading.


Mr. Speaker:: As I understand the situation, the hon. member for Red Deer had the floor, having been recognized, but had not started to speak. If that is so, I am sure the House would have no objection if the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) were called now and the hon. member for Red Deer were called later in the debate.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I think Bill C-23 is supported in general principle by all parties in the House. It is really an example of how not to put legislation through that affects the culture of the people. I do not want to belabour that point, but it is my intention to put forward an amendment to try to get the subject back on the rails and, hopefully, to get the support of all members of the House so that conversion to the metric system can go forward in a sensible, democratic way.
When the resolution regarding the metric system was brought in, we in the official opposition asked that legislation be introduced so that we would know what we were doing, where the responsibility lay and what compensation would be made to the people who were going to be forced to suffer in an economic sense as a result of the legislation. When the legislation was introduced before the Christmas recess a protest was raised by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers). That was the last we heard of this bill until January 26, when we were suddenly informed that it had to be passed very quickly because it was to take effect five days later, on February 1, 1977.
Metric System
At that time I asked in the House the reason for this obscene haste, and suggested that if the government wanted to get the bill through, they would at least have to agree to taking the word "hectares" out, first, because it was not necessary and, second, because farmers all across Canada, not just in western Canada, would be opposed to it. I understood that the government thought well of the idea, which was supported by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) of the New Democratic Party. We agreed to drop debate at that stage and let the bill go to committee.
When we got to committee, farm leaders and union representatives took the very strong position that we had to put the bill through immediately because they had spent a lot of money converting the scales and papers and it would cost more money to go back to the original position. This annoyed members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, at least, because they knew this was not the view of farmers on the prairies. To repeat, on behalf of this party I said we would go out and share with the government in the explanation and try to persuade people that in the national interest we had to accept the concept of working in an international community that would use this international system. Because of our opposition in committee the matter came to the attention of people in the west, and now literally 95 per cent of farmers on the prairies are opposed to this metric conversion.
Some farmers are opposed to the whole thing and some are only opposed to the land measurements. The government has said that land measurement is a provincial matter. That is true, but it was a federal agency, the metric commission, that went to the provinces and got Alberta, Ontario and Saskatchewan to agree to conversion to the metric system in regard to land. In the case of Ontario, it was permissive legislation. In the United States it is also permissive legislation. No person in the United States, whether he is a farmer in the Spanish surveyed lands of Southern California, the French surveyed lands of Louisiana, or the imperial system of most of the United States has to convert his land measurement unless it is to his economic advantage to do so.
In the case of Alberta, the legislation was changed, but never proclaimed. In the case of Saskatchewan, after the legislature adjourned last year, distracted by a big debate on the potash takeover, it was put through by order in council.
The great majority of the people of Saskatchewan living in our cities, towns and on farms do not know this change has been made. The person who has bought a group of lots, say in the town of Kamsack or a farm north of Runnymede, will find he cannot register that new ownership unless he gets the land surveyed in the metric system, according to Saskatchewan regulations coming under the land titles act. This means that the farmer or person buying the land is forced to hire a surveyor. We have not had much to do with surveyors in the last 70 or 80 years, having nearly always accepted the original surveys.

June 9, 1977
Metric System
If you live in an area which is predominantly forest or bush, a survey is expensive and takes a long time. This requirement will create economic loss and eventually will make people resent tremendously attempts at metric conversion. Clearly, the provincial government blundered. It made people feel that governments do not care about people's feelings, that they will not consult people. In years to come this will be the root of tremendous antagonism. True, farmers think this is being done by the federal government, not the Saskatchewan government. The difficulty can be resolved if the minister does what he said on May 3. Answering the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), the Minister of State for Small Business (Mr. Marchand) said, as reported in Hansard for May 3, page 5226:
A decision has been made not to proclaim that section of the bill on metric conversion relating to the grain industry-
That comment concerns five statutes coming under this bill. He continued that remark by saying it would not be done "until after further consultation." He finished that part of his answer with these words:
It will not be until further consultations have been held with the grain industry, and especially the farmers.
That is a promise and a threat. In saying all this, I am thinking more of the farmers than of the heads of the grain industry who have spent several hundred thousand dollars converting their equipment and could use the new system immediately if it suits their operations. Members of parliament should think more of the plight of the farmers, because they make up 99 per cent of the people in the grain industry who could be adversely affected. We cannot consider the vested interests of the grain companies, companies which showed bad judgment in believing the representatives of the federal government who told them this law would be in force by February 1, 1977.
We do not want to harm the grain companies. At the same time, we should not proceed with metric conversion until we have removed some of the obstacles I have mentioned. One such obstacle or difficulty is the attack on the land measurement system. Mr. Speaker, we are not selling our lands on world markets. As the hon. member for Vegreville said, our land measurement system has its roots in antiquity and is part of our culture. If you think our western farmers are annoyed, just wait for the reaction of farmers in Ontario and Quebec where they use various systems of land measurement. In Quebec they measure land in the arpent and the acre. In Ontario they use many different systems of surveying. For instance, boundaries are described as running from this boulder to that oak tree, or to that bend in the river. They use leaps and bounds and jumps, and almost every measurement of which you can think.
From time to time in Ontario and rural Quebec townships set up what are known as fence viewing committees which are composed of leading citizens who settle boundary disputes between farmers. If you force the people of Ontario and Quebec to accept the metric system for measuring land not

sold on world markets you will create an economic storm and eventually a political storm.
Not all metric measurements are to endure internationally. The pamphlet "The international system of units (SI), an outline of Canadian usage", published by the Canadian Standards Association, points out that seven units of metric measurement will be used a limited time only. Included among them are the nautical mile, the knot, a unit of speed measurement used at sea and in the air, the angstrom, the pronunciation of which escapes me but which ought to be printed in Hansard, the hectare and the are. A side note accompanying the table to which I referred reads: Although the are and hectare, by international agreement, have been shown as units to be used for a limited period of time, those units are not to be permanent parts of the international system of measurement.
What does this mean? It means that although the hectare will not be used internationally as a unit of measurement, we shall enforce it on our farmers, create a great political uproar for no reason, and force farmers to take an economic loss in connection with a measurement system nobody else will be using. As I told the minister privately, when he keeps the promise he made on May 3 he should tell officials of Saskatchewan, Alberta and other provinces contemplating metric conversion that the hectare is not to be a permanent unit of measurement. Therefore, we should do in Canada what is done in the United Kingdom and the United States. We should adhere to our traditional arpent or acre. True, final responsibility in this field rests on the provinces, not on the federal government. However, we must let the provincial governments working on metric conversion know that the hectare, part of the present metric system, will not be part of the international metric system in future.
In a moment I shall move an amendment which will bring this debate back on the rails, as it were. My proposed amendment will be consistent with the minister's promise. I say he ought to consult the farmers. We are not so greatly concerned about the heads of grain companies, and by grain companies I mean private as well as co-operative companies which are interested mainly in profit. Their interest in the farmer is secondary. We members of this federal parliament should bear in mind what is good for our farmers, their costs, their political feelings, and try to influence the provinces to eliminate hectares from provincial legislation and provincial orders in council.
It would give the minister time, without wasting the time of parliament in useless debate. When we proposed, in committee, amendments to make the clauses dealing with the grain industry permissive, the Liberal members of the committee turned them down. Naturally, if we are going to vote party or partisan on this issue we have to realize that they can force it through. However, they force us to fight like tigers to stop them. If the government really wants to get this metric conversion back on the path again, it should co-operate in trying to do it properly. The grain companies do not want the govern-
June 9, 1977

ment to proclaim the legislation until the slack season in the fall, any way. I ask that we take some time in the summer and the fall to get to the farmers directly and use the occasion to explain the advantages of the metric system.


Mr. Mazankowski:: Use it to call an election.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Be honest about the difficulties. Guarantee the farmers that you are not going to ask them to change the land measurement system. If the government did this, we would all take part in trying to persuade people. After several years we would get used to using tonnes instead of bushels. It would not hurt too much; it would be a mental exercise. We would have great difficulty persuading the farmers who use very accurate measurements in the spraying of their fields and use ounces per acre, the precise amount, the precise pressure and the precise speed in putting on that spray. If he does not do it accurately, he loses his crop and his whole year's living. If you shift him into millilitres per hectare, he has to do this calculation in the fields without the quiet serenity of an office with a calculator. He might make mistakes and he would have a tremendous economic loss.
All these jobs of persuasion and education at the face to face level have to be done, and the politicians should play a part. If the procedure of consultation is not followed in getting them persuaded, willingingly or at least half willingly, we are in for a terrific fight. What we in the opposition want to do is make sure that the government does not use its majority to force through legislation which, in the minds of the people, was not properly prepared. That is our purpose.
There is one thing we will not accept. That is the land measurement. It is not needed. It is uneconomic. It will raise a political storm that will add one more factor to the divisions in this country and the alienation of people toward this parliament and this government. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Red Deer:
That all the word after "That" be struck out and following substituted therefor: "Bill C-23, an act to facilitate conversion to the metric system of measurement, be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs for the purpose of reconsidering clauses 2, 6, 8 and 10 in the light of further evidence which may be heard from the grain industry, and especially the farmers."
That, in essence, is putting the minister's promise into the legislation. I conclude by pointing out as stronly as I can that this is not a matter of life and death to the nation. It was primarily an effort to assist international companies which buy and sell on world markets to work in units acceptable to the whole world. It was to increase our productivity and efficiency as part of the whole of business. I do not think it was ever designed to be an effort to attack the cultural attachments of people which go back into the centuries.
In spite of what I have been told by farmers and people in my constituency about their opposition to the use of tonnes and millilitres instead of ounces, I am prepared to go out and say that in the long run it will be simpler and better, and if they are careful and do not make mistakes they can learn it.
Metric System
Certainly, their children will have an easier system to work with than the Imperial system.
I think I speak for a good many people on that issue. However, I know that the antagonism toward myself and others who take that stand will be pronounced. This government has stirred the people up on this issue to such a degree that it is very difficult to talk rationally. That is because of the government's mishandling of this matter. The government did not accept my proposal during second reading debate to take out the word "hectare". They did not accept our seven or eight amendments in committee. They turned them down, with every member of the Liberal party voting against them. In spite of all this, I hope they will consider and accept this hoist until the minister completes what he has promised to do and then brings back the legislation. With the views of the farmers we can then push it forward to the degree that they will let us.
Do not force this system on the farmers. It will not help the country. We have always sold our grain on the metric system. For a hundred years we have used the system, but we have never bothered the elevator man or the man at the farm gate. Now we are asking him to be bothered, in the name of economic unity. Let us get this matter back on the rails again. All parties support the principle. Let us have all parties support the conversion, instead of trying to ram it through. My views are well known. If you turn things over to a certain type of civil servant, he is trained in only one thing, that is, to have everything minutely complete and in place. Civil servants want everything neat and tidy. Sometimes that causes those of us in the political field a lot of trouble. If the politicians did their job and spoke for the people, we could get this back on the rails.
There is a further matter. The government has welcomed into its midst a leading opponent of the metric system. Everyone across the west knows that if metric conversion is not stopped, it is evidence he has no weight in the cabinet, and he is destroyed. Maybe that is the purpose of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau); I do not know. But I do know the politics of western Canada. If the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) cannot stop this metric conversion, they say the whole purpose of his entering the cabinet is nullified and all this talk about getting leading citizens in western Canada to join the Liberal Party dies because there is no trust in the implied promise of the Prime Minister to the hon. member for Crowfoot at the time of his appointment.
This is a critical matter, it is an economic matter and a matter of plain common sense.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: As well as a matter of conscience.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Since the government has made this mistake in the handling of the matter, for heaven's sake let it consider this amendment seriously, accept it in the House, stop the debate and get on to other business.

June 9, 1977
Metric System


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I hope the House will allow me to consider the amendment. The first part corresponds to the normal practice of asking that a bill be referred back to committee, with a special instruction to reconsider certain clauses. What concerns me are other conditions attached to the amendment: I am not sure they meet the requirements of a third reading amendment. If the House agrees, I will recognize the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) and put the amendment, if need be, at a later time.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, it was my intention to speak in support of the amendment of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton). I was very optimistic back on May 3 when the minister who is piloting this bill through the House indicated that he intended to have further consultation with interested parties. As recorded at page 5227 of Hansard, he said:
The mechanism has not been decided. I assure the hon. member I shall be happy to receive suggestions from him as to how he feels this matter ought to be dealt with.
Our party's recommendation has gone forward to the minister. It is incorporated in the amendment proposed a few moments ago by my hon. friend, namely, that certain clauses of the bill be referred back to committee for consideration. Frankly, I can see no other way in which consultation can take place with the grain companies and with the farmers in the west. The farmers are extremely upset about this bill. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain said that in his opinion 95 per cent of the farm population was opposed to it, specifically to the change from bushels to tonnes and from acres to hectares.
I would agree with that figure, because of all the letters I have received on the subject-and I have received many-I think only one of them indicates support for the bill. If one reads the western press, the Western Producer and some of the other papers, one finds that week after week, month after month, contributors have been sending letter after letter to the editors opposing the metric system as it relates to the farm. Initially, members opposite said that the majority of the farm population was in favour of the bill. I recall the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale) saying that all his farmers were in favour-


Mr. Goodale:: I said "farm organizations".


Douglas Charles Neil: I would have to look up Hansard and reread what the hon. member said, but my recollection is that he said "the majority of my farmers". It makes sense to me, if there is such a backlash, that a committee of the House of Commons should reconsider the matter. After all, that is the logical forum to hear evidence from the interested parties. If the minister would look back through the committee hearings held in Ottawa when the bill was before the finance committee, he would find it was the farm organizations and the grain trade which were represented. The only two individuals who attended represent-

ing the farmer were from the Association of Rural Municipalities and the Association of Urban Municipalities, and their reading was that the majority of the farmers were opposed to this bill.
If the clauses to which objection is taken are not referred back to the committee for consideration, what other procedure could be followed? Does the minister feel he could send around western Canada a group from the metric conversion committee to meet with the farmers? I suggest that if he did that he would be sending out a group of biased individuals who have only one thought in mind, and that is to force their point of view upon the farmers. I presume that Mr. Earl Baxter might be a member of such a group. It was with interest that I read a news report in the Western Producer of May 26 about a meeting held in Winnipeg at which Mr. Baxter was present. An account in that paper of an interview with him reads in part as follows:
He said in an interview the $300,000 figure is what industry spokesmen estimate they have spent preparing for the metric conversion they thought would happen last February 1.
Later in the report Mr. Baxter is quoted as saying that in his view the legislation should have been introduced early. He said:
I don't know why the government decided to wait so long with it.
That is the attitude of the civil servants. He says that politicians in Ottawa are playing politics. I should like to point out that we on this side are not playing politics. What we are doing is attempting to express the views of 90 per cent of our constituents. We are speaking here in the House of Commons on behalf of our constituents. If the members on the government side read the correspondence they are getting from the farmers of western Canada, they will understand that the farmers do not accept this bill. Mr. Baxter will probably be one of those appointed, if the amendment is not accepted, to go out to western Canada to meet the farmers. But he is biased. He has made up his mind. He is accusing parliamentarians of playing politics. He does not understand the democratic system. To say that because members of parliament debate a bill they are playing politics is a disgraceful statement for a member of the civil service of this country to make.
I will not prolong my remarks, Mr. Speaker, but I do want to say this. An attempt has been made by people such as Mr. Baxter and some members of the grain trade to give the impression that because this bill has not been passed it has cost the grain trade and the grain companies money. For many years we have sold grain on the international market using the metric system. The minister in charge of the Wheat Board, during the time that the bill was before the committee and subsequent to the amendments put forth by this party asking for a dual system, issued a news release, a copy of which I have before me. It is undated, but basically it states that the minister has instructed the board to use a dual system for permit books and quotas when making announcements, and in every other facet of the trade. Those instructions were issued
June 9, 1977

without legislation having to be passed. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, if you talk to a farmer or you visit an elevator and examine a permit book which was issued last fall, several months before this legislation was introduced in the House, you would find that the permit book records the size of fields in both acres and hectares. Obviously, the minister did not feel that it required legislation To make that change in the Wheat Board documents. As I say, this release was issued after the bill went to committee, but before it had passed.
1 should like to tell the grain companies that it does not require any legislation for them to record and to deal with grain in the metric system from the elevator to the point of export. There is no law preventing use of the metric system. When a farmer delivers his load of grain to the elevator, it is a simple matter for the elevator agent to issue a cash purchase ticket or a storage ticket in both bushels and tonnes. That is perfectly legitimate. From that point on the grain company can do all its recording in the metric system. So when news announcements and public statements are made to the effect that the delay in the passage of this bill has prevented the grain trade from converting to the metric system and has cost them money, that is a pack of nonsense, Mr. Speaker.
I want to close by addressing some remarks to the minister.
I am sure that the volume of correspondence which he has received from farmers, as well as the representations made to him by members on this side of the House, are an indication to him that the western farmer is not prepared to accept this bill, particularly the change from acres to hectares. In fairness-I know the minister is fair-I am sure he will accept the motion presented a few moments ago by the hon. member for Qu'Ap-pelle-Moose Mountain to enable the finance committee to hear representations from the farmers to confirm what their letters have said and what we on this side of the House have told the minister. Indeed, I do not think the matter needs confirmation; the minister has himself received sufficient letters on the subject, and possibly the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Horner) has put to him very strongly the feelings of the western farmers.
This is not a political matter, Mr. Speaker, but a matter that affects every farmer in western Canada and, indirectly, every owner or potential owner of land in Canada. 1 ask the House to set politics aside, to accept this amendment, to refer the bill back to committee and to let us for once bring forth legislation which the majority of the people of Canada want.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am compelled to speak on this piece of legislation once again, first of all to support the amendment moved by my good friend and colleague for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton). I hope Your Honour will, in your deliberations, see fit to find the amendment in order. I think it is fair to say that, if there is some slight modification of wording required, this would be quite acceptable in order that we may implement the principal purpose of the motion.
I am also compelled to rise and speak to this legislation once again in view of the statements of the minister in the House since this bill has moved into third reading. The minister
Metric System
indicated that he has some slight reservations about certain sections of the legislation, sections which, I might add, we in this party have vigorously opposed on behalf of the farmers of western Canada. The minister has also said he is receptive to suggestions from the opposition regarding how he might engage in those consultations which he spoke of when he answered my question in the House on May 3. If I may quote precisely what the minister said, I had asked him what mechanism he had in mind for ensuring that the views of the producers would be taken into consideration, and as reported at page 5227 of Hansard he replied;
-the exact mechanism has not yet been decided. I assure the hon. member opposite that I will be happy to receive suggestions from him on how he feels this matter ought to be dealt with.
[DOT] (UIO)
The amendment we have proposed really answers that request. We have taken a position wherein we presented to the minister a mechanism in which he may be able to engage in the consultations he referred to. I hope the minister will not rely upon the members of the metric commission, the bureaucrats, to engage in the kind of consultation he refers to with western producers. As the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) pointed out, these people have a rather biased and bent view on this particular issue. The farmers of western Canada would rather be dealing with elected representatives than paid representatives of the metric commission.
My second purpose in rising to speak on this legislation once again is the fact that the opposition to the provisions we have fought has not lessened. In fact, it has intensified. We have received countless numbers of letters and representations from producers who are concerned and who want to retain, particularly, the acre. They see absolutely no justification for changing the acre to hectare. Quite frankly, they do not see much reason in changing from bushels to tonnes, but the feeling is not quite as strong as it is in the case of acres to hectares. The farmers do not sell their land in the international market, and it will not make one iota of difference as to the amount of grain we sell. It will not involve any greater or lesser convenience or inconvenience on the part of the grain trade whether the producer is producing his grain by acres or hectares. It does make a tremendous amount of difference to the producers.
The opposition is widespread. While there was a growing amount of support for the whole question of metric conversion in western Canada because of the attitude of the government in this particular issue the support for a total metric conversion program has somewhat diminished. I am in the process of conducting a survey on a number of important issues in my riding. These are issues which affect the people in my riding. I have asked the question whether or not they favour the metric conversion system as a whole. Over 65 per cent said no. On the question of the conversion of acres to hectares, 74.3 per cent are opposed to the conversion, and 69 per cent are opposed to the conversion from bushels to tonnes.
I do not apologize for recording my constituents' feelings in this chamber. For anyone to suggest we are playing politics

June 9, 1977
Metric System
when we are telegraphing the feelings of our constituents is absolute and utter nonsense. I know the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) speaks on behalf of his constituents. He is quite outspoken at times on certain issues, even if it means he has to take a position contrary to that of the government. I see no reason for him to engage in the sort of triviality that he engaged in during the crossfire which took place earlier.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) on a point of order.


Mr. Breau:: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether this is a question of privilege or a point of order. The hon. member should not have the impression, because of an interjection on my part, that I was suggesting hon. members on the opposite side were playing politics with this bill. The hon. member mentioned that a public servant had said that and I actually said that it was a terrible thing to say. The hon. member smiled when I said that, and I smiled back. I did not say hon. members opposite were playing politics with this bill.


Ralph Goodale: Hansard should record the smile.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I should point out that the hon. member is still a gentleman. I certainly appreciate the fact that he has clarified that issue.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: This legislation has been referred to as metric conversion. It would be more fashionable to refer to it as metric coercion. We have a situation in which the process of conversion has taken place without legislation. That is unfortunate. This is what has confused many people affected by the process of conversion. Many people in the grain trade, particularly elevator agents and producers, can see no reason for proceeding with such indecent haste with conversion in the grain industry when our major trading partner to the south was not embarking thereon in tandem.
As reported in the Friday, June 3, 1977, edition of the Globe and Mail, Mr. MacMillan, chairman of the Canada Grains Council, said the following:
Businesswise, there were no advantages for the grain industry to change to metric-it was just an expense item. We have many of our transactions with the United States where they are still dealing in bushels. But the government pushed us into the new system ahead of the U.S. and then backed away so easily. This was very disappointing and it has left feelings running high in western Canada.
That has been the thrust of our argument all along. I have it on absolute authority that the United States is not going to proceed with the conversion of the acre to the hectare. The bill was presented as a fait accompli. There was an attempt to rush the bill through, as the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) pointed out. The minister tried to push this bill through on December 21. The fact of the matter is that we know this particular piece of legislation was drafted in February, 1976. It was not introduced in the House of Commons for first reading until November 22, and then it was called for debate and second reading on December 21 late in

the evening. There was a request to sit extended hours in order to pass the bill through all stages, but many of us had comments to make on the measure. It did not appear again until January 26. The legislation was to become law on February 1. That was not sufficient time adequately to explore all the implications of this particular piece of legislation.
The government, and indeed this parliament, has not served the best interests of the farmers of Canada in this piece of legislation. Farm organizations have not served their memberships well. A vast majority of the producers in western Canada do not support the major provisions of this bill, namely, metric conversion in respect of the grain trade. Thus, their wishes have been ignored. In short, I should like to say, on the part of the producers, that they have been ignored by the government and, their own organizations, and parliament has been unable to alter the direction in which the government is proceeding on this measure. There is a feeling of mistrust and disappointment in the minds of the producers of western Canada simply because they have been ignored. It is in that connection we see diminishing confidence in this institution. Many times people who are being affected by legislation are not listened to and their views are not taken into consideration. This is causing tremendous erosion of public confidence in this place. Surely it is the duty of members who are elected to the House to reflect the views of their constituents. That is what we are doing on this occasion.
As I have pointed out, the farm organizations, in my opinion, have not served the best interests of the producers of western Canada, and I regret that. In a weekly paper entitled Alberta Farm Life of Saturday, March 5, the Unifarm organization was seeking direction from Alberta farmers in an effort to assess the impact of metric conversion on the agricultural industry. This bill was supposed to have been law on February 1. This clearly shows that they did not engage in any real and active consultation with their membership prior to its intended implementation. I could quote letters that I have received from a number of farm unions and grain company locals. For example, I have a letter here from Two Hills district Unifarm No. 65-42 which reads:
At this convention one resolution was made and passed unanimously. As secretary I was asked to pass this resolution on to you. The resolution reads as follows:
"We are opposed to the metric system, especially pertaining to agricultural
production. We would like the bushel, acre, and the mile retained.
Yours truly,
Ed. Sokalski
I have another letter here from the Unifarm district No. 64-22 which reads:
It was brought to our attention that you are not in favour of adopting the metric system in the grain trades. I am writing to you on behalf of local and neighbouring farmers that we full-heartedly support your stance in that respect. We believe that adoption of the metric system will do nothing more than cause great and agonizing confusion to the agricultural industry and even more so to farmers in general.
I have a letter here from a local of the United Grain Growers which reads:
June 9, 1977

At the 1977 annual meeting of Kitscoty UGG local a motion was passed that we are against the metric conversion and that we write you and Mr. Runciman in this regard.
Yours truly,
Ernest Lang
Another member of the National Farmers' Union, in a letter to the editor in the Two Hills County Star of Wednesday, February 9, 1977, had this to say:
The acre, the bushel, the mile, is Canada's culture, it is Canada's way of life, it is just as important to Canada as bilingualism, let us keep it that way.
Metro Shepansky
He went on to say:
There isn't one farmer in the country who wants to convert to metric, or was asked if he wants to go metric. The metric conversion is just being shoved down his throat. The railways do not want it and will not accept it now. The elevator scale beams which are in pounds, have not been replaced by metric scale beams, and may never be replaced in some elevators. A farmer brings a load of grain to the elevator which is weighed in pounds, then has it converted to tonnes, which is 2204.622 lbs. or 1000 kilograms in order to get paid, the elevator agent has to convert it back to pounds when he loads cars because the railways are not going into metric conversion.
There will be much confusion and distrust, because people do not know the metric system. Why not leave the farmer continue to use "acres", "bushels", and "miles"?
The County of Vermilion River, supported unanimously by the council, sent a wire to me which I want to place on the record. It reads:
Please be advised of the passage of the following resolution by the council of the county Vermilion River No. 24 at a meeting held on February 10, 1977:
Whereas the producers of cereal crops in western Canada have not been consulted to a sufficient degree and thus have not been enabled to express constructive views on the subject of the advisability of converting from the "acre" to the "hectare" in describing the area of prairie farmland;
And whereas the system of describing the area of the vast stetches of farmland in the prairie region of western Canada is somewhat unique, easily understood by those in and being trained for the agricultural industry and is wholly satisfactory to them;
And whereas the definition of an "acre" as used in western Canadian agriculture has no effect on either international suppliers to the industry or the customers for its product;
And whereas the complexity of the industry is so great the balance between the application rates for chemicals commonly used in the industry and the successful production of cereal grains is critical, the penalty for mistakes so great in the loss of food production for an entire twelve months period and the effect of such loss on world population so drastic that human manipulations not even remotely associated with food production should not be permitted to jeopardize the output of even one tonne of grain;
Now therefore be it resolved that the council of the county of Vermilion No. 24 expresses in a most emphatic and sincere manner its opposition to the implementation of the program to convert the "acre" to the "hectare" in describing the area of agricultural land in the prairie region of western Canada.
We have received countless numbers of representations from individuals, from farm union locals, from counties and municipalities. From the amendment that was placed before the House this morning by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) it can be clearly seen that we in this party have adopted a practical and reasonable approach to this problem. Quite frankly, I think it is no surprise to members on the other side of the House that we sincerely want to see the acre retained and we see aboslutely no reason for the conversion of the acre to the hectare under the provisions of this legislation.
Metric System
I might say that I detected some support on the Liberal side during the committee meetings, particularly among urban members. I think some of them were sincerely trying to work out a reasonable solution, but unfortunately farm organizations lost touch with their own supporters, their own memberships and the agricultural community and came out very strongly in favour of the conversion process. However, I think they have now found that they have not reflected the views of the producers, those who will be affected.
We have heard in this debate much about the importance of adopting a pure metric system. We all know that other countries too, are engaged in the conversion process, some of them with a greater or lesser degree of success. But it should be noted that in Great Britain, because of the difficulty they have had in selling the metric conversion program, they have adopted a flexibility that is necessary in order to sell the program. In the Sunday Telegraph of November 7, in an article entitled "Metrication Muzzled and Delayed" we are told:
-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.
I think it is fair to say that other countries have adopted a similar stance. We hear from the minister about the progress that is being made in the United States. I am not sure that they will adopt a totally pure metric system either. In a letter that I have received from Congressman Don Fuqua, dated February 7, 1977, he said:
In neither of these cases has it been found advantageous to switch to the English system in the past, and there are not now any plans to switch those measurements or any land measurements elsewhere in the United States to metric measurements.
He was referring to the land system measurement in Louisiana which still employs the French system, and to the California land measure which employs the Spanish system. He indicated that even at this point in time there has not been total acceptance of the Imperial measurement in that great country. The letter is written on stationery of the committee on science and technology of the U.S. House of Representatives. He goes on to say:
In regard to possible changeover to the metric system by the board of trade in Chicago, and the possible effect on grain and other commodity trades, there are, to the best of my knowledge, no plans in existence at this time for a changeover.
There has been a fair amount of debate about final payments and the pricing structure of the Canadian Wheat Board. Forrest Hetland, one of the commissioners, said that his best advice to farmers is that if they want to know price trends, they should follow the price card of the Canadian Wheat Board and the prices set on the Chicago, Kansas and Minneapolis futures markets; that the futures markets are guides for world prices of wheat, and that reality forces the board's prices to bear a close relationship to these prices. What he was really doing was this: while we are transferring to the metric system of measurement and pricing, he was asking farmers to compare prices here with prices in the United States which is going to maintain the Imperial system. What a bunch of
6460

June 9, 1977
Metric System
nonsense and confusion! It is unnecessary. If we are going to make the changeover, I think it is important that we be co-ordinated and synchronized with our major trading partners. The government has completely and totally ignored that.
I could quote many more letters. Before I conclude I must say that I take exception to a document called "Metric Monitor". Its reporting of the proceedings of the standing committee were certainly biased and slanted with one view in mind. It recorded every point of view which was in support of metric conversion. It certainly did not give a balanced reporting of the opposition point of view and the point of view of other hon. members who expressed reservations. Everything in the "Metric Monitor" is totally biased and I think it is unfair that we as taxpayers are paying for it. The "Metric Monitor" has not given the Canadian people an accurate reflection of the proceedings in the committee which considered this bill. I think that is very unfortunate.
That is the kind of thing we will have if the minister allows bureaucrats to engage in this kind of consultative process. The minister says he wants consultation. We have provided an avenue so that he may proceed that way. We believe the consultation should be with elected members of parliament, and not with bureaucrats. We believe the committee should travel and that it should hear any and all available evidence. Any producer or any group should be able to come before that committee and make his or their position known. Then, and only then, will the minister have a clear record of the views of the grassroots producers, those who will be affected by this legislation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Before I call on the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) I would like to make my decision on the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton).
I still feel that I should resist the amendment in its present form. The latter part of the amendment limits the instruction to the committee. The hon. member proposes that this bill be referred back to the committee for the purpose of reconsidering clauses 2, 6, 8 and 10 in the light of further evidence. It is that portion which worries me a little.
I am not very satisfied with the precedents I have found, but in recent years, on occasions like this, the Chair has had the tendency to resist this kind of limiting instruction. I do not think it renders a service to the committee to suggest that it get the bill back for the purpose of hearing evidence only from the grain industry and especially farmers. This might leave the impression with the committee that other witnesses might not be welcome or might not be included in the instructions of the House. Without really having good precedents to back up my decision, that alone should be a good reason for it.
Citation 418 of Beauchesne's says, in effect, that there are things we can do more easily at second reading than at third reading. That does not really touch on this point particularly, but it might be worth while to read the citation to the House.

It is found at page 288 of Beauchesne's. Beginning on the sixth line, the citation reads as follows:
On the second reading of a bill, an amendment may be moved expressing opinions as to any circumstances connected with its introduction or prosecution, or seeking further information in relation to the bill by committees or commissioners, the production of papers or other evidence, or the opinion of judges. This cannot be done on the third reading because it is not directly connected with any provision of the bill.
That does not really go to the point I want to make, but I feel that the way the amendment is worded it is half a recommittal amendment and half a reasoned amendment. I find it difficult to accept that in the same amendment. We perhaps tend, by this limitation, to indicate a reason why we tend to support a motion to prevent the third reading of a bill by implying that it might not correspond with the wishes of a special group of people, the grain industry or farmers, and I would consider that more on the side of a reasoned amendment.
This amendment would refer the bill back to the committee with a specific instruction to reconsider clauses 2, 6 and 8, and 10, and there is also a limitation. The hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) at the outset of his remarks indicated that hon. members who support the amendment might accept the suggestion of the Chair to modify it, with the unanimous consent of the House, by eliminating all the words after "and 10", which does not preclude any hon. member speaking in favour of the amendment from saying whatever he wishes and repeating what has been taken out of the amendment.
If it is satisfactory to the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain and to the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers), and if there is unanimous consent, I would be prepared to accept the amendment in this limited form.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for your ruling. We are quite prepared to cut off my amendment after the number 10, but I wonder if the Chair would object to putting in the word "thereof", following the pattern of a precedent on January 26, 1976. Whatever the word "thereof' means, it seems to make the motion sound very good.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: We agree thereto.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion as amended?


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I thought for a minute that the minister was going to agree to the amendment, but then I saw him ready to jump to his feet. As the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) was speaking, I could see that he was capturing the heart of the minister. It was a tremendous speech which outlined the opinions and wishes of farmers in western Canada.
June 9, 1977

During second reading of the bill I was amazed that the minister did not accept the reasoned amendments of the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) who suggested that because conversion to the metric system is a painful process there should be a dual system for a period to allow the western farmer to get used to metric. We already have cans and boxes labelled in two languages, so it would not seem much of a problem to have them labelled in two forms of measurement as well until farmers converted to the metric system. The government's rejection of that suggestion reflected its inflexible approach to conversion. We hope they will look more seriously at the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Qu'Ap-pelle-Moose Mountain.
The minister decided that rather than accept the amendments, certain clauses of the bill would not be proclaimed until the farmers had been consulted again. I see this as an admission that the metric commission did not consult all the farmers of western Canada in the first instance, but accepted the views of a few farm leaders as being the general view. The hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) mentioned that he felt the farm organizations had not represented the wishes of their memberships in the way they should, and now the farmers are approaching those organizations saying they are opposed to metric conversion and that the organizations misrepresented them. The only option left to us was to have the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain move an amendment to have clauses 2, 6, 8 and 10 reinstated in the bill so that farmers and farm organizations can be called before the committee again to ensure there is adequate consultation with the people affected.
We should not be asked to accept the promise of the Minister of State for Small Business (Mr. Marchand) that parts of the bill will not be proclaimed if we pass it. I think that is a lot to ask. The need for consultation is very clear. It became evident during committee hearings that the government had done little to ascertain the feelings of producer groups, despite the fact that the mandate of the metric commission in the first instance stated that the benefits of conversion to the metric system should be achieved at minimal cost and, second, that conversion to the metric system as a whole should be effected to the best advantage to Canada. It has been stated very clearly today that we have no objection to conversion as far as international trade is concerned. Many companies in this country and the United States have already converted. There seems to be no advantage to Canada to convert the acre and the mile, however, as these are part of our culture and the system we grew up with.
Consultation should not consist of post facto information sessions wherein the government instructs farmers on the benefits of metrication. Consultation is, by definition, a twoway process-a give and take dialogue whereby mutually acceptable solutions are arrived at. I do not think the government has the slightest intention of establishing this kind of constructive dialogue.
Metric System
The government continually turned a deaf ear to any arguments for duality made by members in committee. The minister's recent commitment to meet groups which will be affected by any Wheat Board changes obliges him at least to listen to the arguments in favour of retaining the terms "acre" and "bushel". I think he will be astounded at the intensity of feeling in the prairies and the intensity of the argument western farmers will offer for retention of these two terms.
I should like to offer the government a taste of some of the reactions I have received from farmers in my constituency concerning the change to the metric system. Recently I sent a questionnaire to constituents and received a large return, chiefly from rural areas. The following comments were pretty standard: "Poor idea and too costly, conditions being such as they are. We need metric like a cat needs ten tails. It costs millions and confuses millions. It is the worst thing that could happen to agriculture. It will be a financial disaster to many persons. The movement to tonnes and hectares is to much". I could go on and on Mr. Speaker, but this is the gist of the replies I received. Farmers are not in favour of changing to the metric system of measurement at the present time. These people are angry that their opinions have been ignored, and they are bitter at the federal government's insensitivity to their special problems.
I do not understand the logic of arguments for wholesale conversion to the metric systems. It seems to boil down to consistency for consistency's sake. Surely it is time we moved beyond this closed-mind approach. One of the major principles of democratic governments is that they are responsive to the wishes of the people who elected them to govern. In this case the government seems a little slow to acknowledge the wishes of the people. All we are doing here is providing them with time to consult the people again. I know the minister is scratching his head, and I believe he is serious about attempting to meet these requirements.
The government of the United Kingdom should serve as a good example. It made major concessions to groups which sought the same thing western farmers are seeking, and agreed that the mile, the inch, the pint and the gallon would be exempt from statutory metrication. The governments of Sweden and the government of the United States have also indicated their willingness to have a mixed system of measurement in certain areas. If other nations can demonstrate this kind of flexibility, why not the government of Canada?
Judging by the outcry from farmers in my constituency the need to retain the acre is evident. These men and women are very upset about the change from acres to hectares. Since the first day on their land they have dealt in terms of acres, measured their pesticides, bought their seed and sown their crops all with reference to the unit of the acre. Now they are being asked to make their calculations in terms of hectares.
The farmers of this country are already in a precarious position. The spiralling cost of almost all major farm inputs, combined with inflation in other sectors, means the farmer is
80018-7'/2

June 9, 1977
Metric System
involved in a continual struggle to make ends meet. He cannot afford the energy, time or expense needed to learn a new system which offers him no tangible benefits. The metric system will not make his land more productive, nor his cattle healthier, nor gain him a single extra dollar on market day. Is it any wonder he is resentful?
In previous debates the government attempted to slough off the concern of my colleagues about the effect the proposed change from acres to hectares will have on the land titles system in western Canada. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain dealt with some of those effects. It has been argued that provincial and municipal officials will not necessarily need to change their system of land measurement, to keep in tune with Wheat Board changes. However, such changes are already discussed in provincial legislatures.
I agree with my colleague for Vegreville who said during the committee hearings on this bill that if a farmer will have to use hectares in his quota allocations and in his dealings with the Canadian Wheat Board, it only follows suit that the municipalities and the countries will use the same measurement to be consistent. I say that the cost of such changes will be enormous, and the end results extremely confusing. As land is sold, new titles will have to be drawn up in terms of hectares. A patchwork system of land registry will be the outcome, some parcels of land being measured in acres and others in hectares. This will lead to unnecessary confusion.
The grid system of land measurement, with its sections, square miles and acres has served us well for many years. It is a simple system which all of us in western Canada understand. We all know our roads are laid out in distances of one mile by two miles, that each square mile encompasses 640 acres and each township encompasses 36 sections. The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) during the second reading debate discussed the origin of this system of land measurements. The benefits of its simplicity have been apparent over the years. Its worth has been shown time and again. 1 might add that the western land titles system is the envy of a number of other Canadian provinces-indeed, of some other countries.
It would be foolhardy if the government, for the sake of consistency, were to replace a tried and trusted system with one which bears no relationship to the existing method of land registry. What are the benefits of the proposed change? I am having a hard time discovering what benefits are to be gained from such a system of land measurement as the government proposes.
We should consider the very idea of change most seriously. Before we cast out old methods and introduce new ones we should evaluate carefully the costs and benefits involved and ask ourselves: What price are we paying for this change? True, in much of the history of the western world it has been held that change is inherently good in and of itself. Today we are re-examining this idea, calling it in question. Environmentalists have argued that the ecological costs of some industrial innovations are prohibitive. Educators have begun to discard so-called new teaching methods and are reverting to the old, tried and true system.

That the new system is a failure is demonstrated by the fact that today some students can hardly read or write even when they seek to enter university. We now know that hasty, ill-advised change can hinder, rather than hasten, progress. That is why I urge the government to accept the amendment proposed today by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain and thereby do the Canadian people a great service.


Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, since 1 was unable to participate in the debate on second reading by reason of attendance at committee meetings, I am particularly pleased to have the opportunity to speak on third reading of this bill. As hon. members know, the constraints of committee attendance sometimes make it impossible for members to participate in debates in this House.
Since first introducing this legislation the government has paused, has delayed, as it were. That delay has been to the good for it has enabled grain producers, especially those in western Canada, to let their members of parliament know their gut reaction to this bill. I have been made aware of the reaction of constituents as a result of correspondence and personal visits. I point out that nearly all this reaction became evident after the second reading debate, after news of these changes had become known to constituents and to the shirtsleeved grain farmers of western Canada.
May I call it one o'clock?


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move the following motion seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie):
That the government advise the House of the whereabouts of 700 copies of the Toronto Sun dated June 9, 1977, placed on an Air Canada flight to Ottawa early this morning, and, in particular whether or not anyone in the government or in the Liberal Party, acting on behalf of the government had anything to do with this paper not appearing on Ottawa newstands, and, finally, whether or not the reason was that the newspaper contained an article which might be embarrassing to the Liberal Party and damaging to its campaign director. Senator Keith Davey.
June 9, 1977


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the presentation of such a motion?


Some hon. Members:: No!


An hon. Member:: Cover up!
*. * *
[ Translation]


CONFEDERATION
Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the Elouse to put a motion dealing with a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that some federal ministers, especially the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) have launched a real campaign on the advantages of Confederation for Quebec in spite of the statements made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to the effect that his government would not quarrel over figures; considering that those ministers are making a disgraceful show by throwing figures at each other like children throwing stones and as such behaviour is inconsistent with the dignity and seriousness which the people expect from their representatives, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise):
That the House ask ministers of the Crown to refrain immediately from quarrelling about figures with the Quebec government, since this quarrel, far from contributing to the englightenment of the debate, only reflects on the credibility and dignity of the people's representatives.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. 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.



TRANSPORT


Mr. John Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the serious charges, in essence of negligence and maladministration, made by the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) who is also Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue, against the Ministry of Transport in respect of icebreaker services off the east coast of Canada and the charge that the sinking of the William Carson could have been prevented if
Oral Questions
there were better deployment of icebreakers off Newfoundland and Labrador, that the present deployment is "scandalous" and that there is only one icebreaker operating off Newfoundland, with one on lease and four or five lying idle in Dartmouth, I therefore wish to move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That these charges be referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications for examination of the hon. member and the Minister of Transport and for investigation and report back to the House as to the validity or otherwise of the charges.


Mr. Speaker:: The provisions of Standing Order 43 require the unanimous consent of the House for the presentation of such a motion. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF CHIEF OF DEFENCE STAFF FOR UNITED KINGDOM, ADMIRAL SIR EDWARD ASHMORE

Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before beginning the oral question period I know that hon. members would want to join with me in signalling the presence in our gallery of a distinguished visitor here for NATO meetings. I refer to the chief of the defence staff for the United Kingdom, Admiral of the Fleet Sir Edward Ashmore.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the minister of external affairs. I should like to commence by thanking the minister for agreeing to postpone his statement on nuclear safeguards in general at the specific request of our party; I appreciate that very much. There are one or two matters I should like to raise which may perhaps be pertinent because of their timing.
First of all, I understand the minister is against starting negotiations with Japan, and I would like to ask him whether it is probable that Canada will reach some understanding with Japan about nuclear exports of uranium and reactors, either formally or informally, before the Group of Seven report promised after the summit meetings in London comes down?

June 9, 1977
Oral Questions
Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): First of all, Mr. Speaker, I want to return the compliment by thanking the hon. member for giving me notice. The position is that I would hope we can make progress at the Vancouver meetings next Monday with Japan. The bilateral agreements are not necessarily hinged on the results of the Group of Seven study. The problems between our two points of view have been identified. Perhaps the most substantive one at the moment is the question of double labelling; that is to say, when supplies from Canada go into the United States, it is the Canadian position that they remain under Canadian control, and also through the full life and into the Japanese cycle. The Japanese are maintaining that the Canadian regulations should not go that far, but it is possible that in the talks next week we will arrive at some mutual agreement which will enable us to resume shipments.


POSSIBILITY OF RESUMPTION OF SALES OF SUPPLIES TO INDIA FOR NUCLEAR REACTOR
James McPhail Gillies: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Again in relation to the immediacy of these negotiations, I understand that the Prime Minister is now talking to the prime minister of India about Canada's role in exporting to that country. I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs what is the likelihood of the resumption of Canada's dealing with India in the field of nuclear supplies, given the fact that we had an unfortunate experience with that country in the past.
Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I would say that the likelihood of an immediate resumption is slight if one is speaking in terms of months. However, prior to the Prime Minister's leaving for London we were encouraged by some of the statements which had been made by the new administration in India. It is these statements on which the Prime Minister is seeking additional clarification. 1 do not think it is an improper disclosure to say that the Prime Minister will obviously be urging that the Indian government adopt the Canadian policy, namely that of full scope safeguards. I have not as yet heard anything from London on the outcome of what I gather were quite preliminary discussions yesterday, but I understand that more substantive talks between the two prime ministers will take place this weekend.


ALLEGED PARTICIPATION BY CANADA IN INTERNATIONAL
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and it relates to the statement made last week by the president of Gulf Oil Corporation that he had been ordered by the government to participate in an international uranium price-fixing cartel which operated between 1972 and 1975. In
[Mr. Gillies.)
view of the federal grand jury investigations into anti-trust allegations involving the Canadian government, the congressional investigations and the $2.5 billion worth of litigation carried on by Westinghouse in the United States, will the minister tell the House what action the government is taking to resolve this situation?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I will answer that question because it affects certain aspects of the administration of my department. There is no secret about the fact that Canada was engaged in a producers group or producers club aimed at trying to provide a stability of price for uranium, and indeed the survival of certain communities in Canada. The question which has been highlighted by the president of Gulf in a recent statement is that the Canadian subsidiary passed information to the United States parent corporation and that some of that information may be made public in the United States. It is confidential information originating from government sources. It is something I regret very much, and we took action to prevent it happening.


DATE OF INTRODUCTION OF CONTROLS ON OWNERSHIPS OF URANIUM MINES AND FACILITIES
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, my recollection is that this answer of the minister is completely contradictory to an earlier answer he made in which he denied the existence of any arrangements whatsoever.
I want to ask the minister, in light of the problem of extraterritoriality facing the uranium industry, when the government intends to bring forward the controls on foreign ownership of Canadian uranium which have been promised for so long? The former minister, the Hon. J. J. Greene, made a statement of policy in 1970, but there has been no indication of legislation being brought forth to put into place a precise policy respecting the ownership of uranium mines and facilities in Canada.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I hope to be able to bring it forth in this current session. As the hon. member knows, there is clearly no possibility of introducing such legislation and getting it through before this session rises. As a consequence, therefore, I would expect that we would have to wait until the next session to introduce the legislation. I hope to have the co-operation of the House to proceed expeditiously.


COMBINES
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the statement which has just been made by the Minister of Energy, Mines
June 9, 1977

Oral Questions
and Resources to the effect that there has been in place a price arrangement with respect to the sale of uranium, I wonder whether the minister could advise the House as to whether his department has investigated this arrangement; whether they are in a position to come forward with a report as to whether this particular activity contravenes any Canadian regulation or legislation with respect to price fixing; and whether there will be a statement made to clarify this situation because of the image of our country with foreign customers and also with respect to the impact on consumers in Canada?


Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the director of investigations conducts frequent inquiries into various things and has frequently reviewed different sectors of industry. As the hon. member is well aware, the uranium industry has been the subject of an action in the United States asserting that there have been combinations of price-fixing. Needless to say, our department is most interested in the subject. I cannot offer the hon. member any comment at this time; but I will take notice of it and bring the matter to the attention of the director of investigations and report to him.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General and concerns the evidence which was given before Mr. Justice Laycraft in Edmonton on June 7, that RCMP officers had illegally bugged the hotel rooms of three Edmonton city police officers. I wonder if the Solicitor General could advise the House as to whether he has conducted an inquiry into that most serious allegation which was made in front of Mr. Justice Laycraft, an Edmonton judge, and if so, could he advise whether charges will be laid or whether an offence took place?


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I have read the reports of the evidence given before Mr. Justice Laycraft during the inquiry in Alberta. One RCMP corporal gave evidence that he had second hand information to the effect that the room had been bugged. This matter was looked into by the top management of the RCMP. The deputy commissioner of RCMP was delegated by the commissioner of the force to investigate the matter fully and as a result of his investigation it was found that no acts of bugging in connection with the investigation which the hon. member mentioned have occurred. However, the matter, as I understand it, is being investigated by the royal commission inquiry into the Royal American Road Shows in Alberta, and if any evidence comes to light of illegal bugging, immediate action will be taken.


INVESTIGATION OF ROYAL AMERICAN ROAD SHOWS-REFUSAL TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS ON GROUNDS OF NATIONAL SECURITY
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: My information-
I hope the Solicitor General will correct me if I am wrong-is that certain evidence was not introduced at that hearing because of a certificate that it involved questions of national security. Could the Solicitor General advise me if my information is correct and, if it is, what was the matter of national security that the Solicitor General was seeking to protect?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet been advised as to whether the affidavit to which I subscribed has yet been produced in the court. There was a request for documents from me which related to matters looked into by the security service of the RCMP which have absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with the case of the Royal American Road Shows. The affidavit was subscribed to by me on grounds of national security as I am authorized to do under section 41(2) of the Federal Court Act.


BREAK-IN AT PRAXIS CORPORATION-POSSIBILITY OF CHARGES BEING LAID AS RESULT OF RETENTION OF DOCUMENTS
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: In the case of the Praxis break-in in Toronto the documents that were obtained by the RCMP at that time were held for a period of some years before being made available to their rightful owners, or the Toronto police for that matter. Would the Solicitor General advise the House whether he has received any opinion from the law officers of the Crown as to whether an offence took place in terms of receiving stolen property in view of the fact the force itself retained those documents? Coming into their possession, they would appear to have the legitimate right to examine the information in terms of their information gathering responsibility. Has any advice been given to the Solicitor General that a crime took place because of the failure to return the property to Praxis Corporation, and will charges follow?


Francis Fox: I have not received an opinion from the law officers of the Crown to the effect that a crime has been committed. I immediately consulted the law officers of the Crown following knowledge of the fact that some of these documents were still in the possession of the RCMP. The advice I received from the Department of Justice at that time was that the documents ought to be turned over to the Metropolitan Toronto Police department immediately, which was done. That department had the responsibility of investigating the question of a possible break-in and the matter of the retention of documents, and I understand that the Metropolitan Toronto Police department has now concluded its investigation, has had the opinion of a Crown attorney in the department of the provincial attorney general of Ontario to the effect that there was no criminal act involved in the retention of the documents.

June 9, 1977
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


FINANCE
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
According to the official Gazette of Canada, within the five-month period between October 31, 1976 and March 31, 1977, chartered banks' assets went up from $121 billion to $133 billion, an increase of $12 billion over the previous year. Can the Minister of Finance explain why chartered banks in this country are so prosperous while Canada's debts are increasing and unemployment is so disastrous?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not think there is a relation between both facts.
* *
*


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Walter David Baker: I have a supplementary question for the Solicitor General arising out of the line of questions involving the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, specifically with respect to L'Agence de Presse Libre matter. I understand that the sentencing of the three police officers in question, including one from the RCMP, will be delayed now until June 16. Would the minister be prepared to confirm this, and will he also be prepared to confirm that immediately following that event he will be making a statement in the House giving a full disclosure, as was undertaken by the Prime Minister and indeed the minister himself?


Francis Fox: Yes, Mr. Speaker, on both counts. I have been informed by the attorneys of the Department of Justice that the trial judge in Montreal heard the arguments of the defence attorneys and the Crown attorneys this morning in Montreal and decided to postpone handing down the sentence until June 16. It will be my intention to make a statement in the House on June 17, the day following the handing down of the sentence.


REASON FOR FAILURE OF FORMER MINISTER TO BE INFORMED OF PLANS FOR VIOLENT DEMONSTRATION OF ANNIVERSARY OF 1970 CRISIS
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, the news report also indicates that counsel at the hearing today representing Chief Superintendent Donald Cobb said that the special anti-terrorist squad had received information that a violent celebration of the second anniversary of the 1970 crisis was planned by FLQ members and that that anti-terrorist squad had received that information some five months earlier. I emphasize the fact that it was five months earlier. If this is

true-and I think the statement should cover that-would the minister make some special inquiries to ascertain how this information which was in the hands of the RCMP some five months earlier could not have been in the hands of the then solicitor general, who was responsible for the RCMP?
While I am on my feet, I would like to ask the minister to undertake that the special prosecutor in the case was not binding the Solicitor General and, indeed, the government when he is alleged to have told the trial judge-and I am now quoting from the release-that the break-in and the nature of the operation will not be made public because of the special nature of this affair and because it involves state secrets. Is the minister bound by this statement? Has he had anything to do with instructing the special prosecutor with respect to this matter? Does he accept that limitation? In other words, is the Solicitor General's statement to be a full statement as has been originally promised by the Solicitor General and, indeed, by the Prime Minister?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, it is quite evident that the special prosecutor who handled the matter before the court in Montreal was appointed by the attorney general of the province of Quebec, and as such I have not been in touch with him, nor have I given instructions. It would not be proper for me to be in touch with him or to give him instructions. What he said in the course of his argument is not binding on the government of Canada.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, in light of the answers given by the Solicitor General to the hon. member for New Westminster and in light of the fact that we heard powerful evidence today from Mr. Chappel, Mr. Cartwright and Mr. Cooper, members of the Law Society of Upper Canada and distinguished Queen's Counsel, as to the numher of unauthorized buggings or wiretappings, would the Minister of Justice now consider repenting and withdrawing those clauses in Bill C-51 which would usurp the civil rights of Canadians everywhere?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the evidence to which the hon. member referred because I was obviously not in the committee. Those amendments which are in committee are being studied, and in due course the committee will report. I have had an opportunity to read the brief from the Advocates Society of Ontario. Some of it I find to be a very useful contribution, namely, the latter part which proposes that where an application for a wiretap is made, notification must be given of previous applications. However, I take very considerable exception to the part about solicitor-client communications. I indicated at second reading that it seemed to me to be fundamental to our system that the citizen must have the right to communicate with his counsel
June 9, 1977

without the fear of interception, and it is for that precise reason that the amendments are being proposed. With the greatest respect to the Advocates Society of Ontario I do not understand that submission.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice and I are good friends, but I think what he said today was tommy-rot. In light of the decision in the Wray case in the Supreme Court of Canada that any evidence which is relevant is admissible and in light of the fact that unauthorized wiretapping is going on-and we have no way of determining to what extent-I ask the minister again whether he will repent, stop the rhetoric and give us an answer.


SWINE INFLUENZA VACCINATION PROGRAM-POSSIBILITY OF REINTRODUCTION-REASON FOR SHORTAGE OF RUBELLA VACCINE
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. According to figures provided by his department almost ten million doses of swine 'flu vaccine were prepared for the 1976 season but less than six million doses were sent to the provinces. Would the minister tell the House what happened to the remaining four million doses and what he plans to use them for-if he knows where they are? Since there has been a death from swine 'flu in the United States recently, does he intend introducing a swine 'flu vaccination program for this year as well?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the quantity of vaccine referred to by the hon. member is kept in stock and a review of the situation is made regularly. The case reported in the United States has been investigated and it seems that it is a known case of New Jersey type flu. But we feel there is no reason yet to launch another vaccination campaign. However, if other cases were reported in the next few months, we probably should restart the program.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Order please. I wonder if I might be able to hear the questions and answers, please. The hon. member for Athabasca has a supplementary question.


Paul Yewchuk: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister explain why the country is currently experiencing a shortage of rubella or German measles vaccine? Is it because the Canadian facilities were all turned to the packaging and processing of swine 'flu vaccine? The shortage has been so severe that no province has been able to obtain adequate supplies for the last three months. In view of the risk of deformities in children that may occur if German measles is contracted in the early stages of pregnancy, what is the minister going to do about this problem?
Oral Questions


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I can say to the hon. member that the reason for the shortage is not related to the production of the New Jersey type vaccine involved last fall. As to what the present situation is, I shall inquire and gladly report to the hon. member at the first opportunity.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that the United States and Canada agreed to a status quo arrangement regarding the Georges Bank only for this year, an arrangement which I understand has not yet been ratified by the United States Congress, can the minister indicate if he has "lit a fire" to use his own words, under the negotiators on both sides through his special representative who I believe has been appointed in place of Mr. Beasley and if so, will he inform the House of the progress being made to resolve the ownership of this bank whose resources of ground-fish, scallops and deepsea lobster are worth many millions of dollars annually to Canadian fishermen?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to give a progress report. The preliminary negotiations have been continuing and as the hon. member says the "fire" is burning a little more brightly on our side than on the United States side. I was advised by the State Department a few days ago that they must undertake a series of preliminary discussions with their regional councils and other departments which they now believe will be finished in short order. This means that the actual negotiations should soon begin and I estimate this will take place before the end of the month or certainly early in July.


ARRANGEMENTS WITH UNITED STATES FOR FISHING RIGHTS ON GEORGES BANK-POSSIBILITY OF THIRD COUNTRY MEDIATION
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: In light of the uncertainty hanging over the fishing industry in Canada and the United States-an uncertainty which I submit hampers the future progress and development of the industry-as a result of this impasse, has the minister given any thought to calling on a third country to assist in mediating this dispute?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the interim agreement to which the hon. member referred was agreed to sometime ago and, as he said, is now in the process of going through the United States Congress. It has a provision in it that if agreement has not been reached by the end of this year or if it is apparent toward
6468

June 9, 1977
Oral Questions
the end of the year that agreement will not be reached, it is open to one or both parties to make use of third country arbitration. There was no specific agreement as to the form of arbitration that might be employed but the means are available to settle that particular question.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Prosper Boulanger (Mercier):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question of the Minister of Public Works, but in his absence I shall direct it to his parliamentary secretary. Has the minister dropped the project of Place Guy Favreau in Montreal?


Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the Place Guy Favreau project in Montreal has not been dropped. However, we are considering a more modest project, which may have various uses.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has his attention been drawn to the case of Anatoly Scha-ransky, founding member of the Soviet group monitoring the Helsinki Agreement who has been imprisoned and charged with espionage despite the fact that his only offence was his application for a visa to emigrate from the Soviet Union? If the minister is aware of this, has he given consideration to making representations to the government of the Soviet Union urging it to live up to the commitment it made when it signed the Helsinki Agreement and to permit Mr. Scharansky to leave the Soviet Union?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, of course I am familiar with the case in question which has been widely publicized and has been called to my attention by the hon. member and other members of the House. We have not made representations to the Soviet Union on this particular case but it is our judgment that the general representations I have made repeatedly with regard to the treatment of dissidents as well, of course, as on family reunification, covers situations such as this one. In our preparations for the Belgrade conference we have to assess the ongoing effects of the Helsinki Agreement and I have no doubt that Canada, along with many other countries, will be making the same kind of strong representations at Belgrade.


David Orlikow: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the United States government which is also assessing the position it will take at the Belgrade conference, has already expressed its views to the government of the Soviet Union in connection with this case, will the minister consider making direct representations to let the Soviet Union know that its actions will be a factor in the attitude of the Canadian representatives at that conference?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to consider that but as I have said many times in the House there is no question from my point of view and, I am sure, of hon. members, that there is a certain amount of satisfaction which comes from commenting on individual cases. It has been our experience, however, that it is more effective in most circumstances to make the kinds of representations to which I referred earlier. If there is something to be gained by joining with other countries in a specific reference to an individual, certainly I will be glad to look into it.


STABBING AND POLICE HARASSMENT OF MRS. NORMA MASON IN TIJUANA, MEXICO-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Just over two months ago Mrs. Norma Mason from Surrey was visiting Tijuana, Mexico and was stabbed by an unknown assailant. I have asked the minister whether he has lodged a formal protest with the Mexican government regarding this incident because it followed that in her semi-paralytic state she was harassed by the police. Has the minister lodged a formal protest with the Mexican government and is the government going to give her some kind of compensation for that harassment?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice. That is all the more reason why I am sorry to have to say to him that after he talked to me there was not time to get the full details. I will get them as quickly as possible, however. On the question of representations, I am quite certain although it is not of my personal knowledge that we have made representations already. I will get an up-to-date report from our ambassador in Mexico and from our local officials on the matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This must be one of those rare parliamentary occasions on which notice can be given in advance of a supplementary question.
* * 11-TRANSPORT


INCREASE IN FREIGHT RATES ON POTATOES AND PROVISION OF ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT-REASON FOR TIMING OF ANNOUNCEMENT
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the Minister of Transport has heard of this question in
June 9, 1977

advance. I raised the matter with him on May 2. It concerned the recent announcement of the railways concerning an increase of 34 per cent to be implemented in the next six months for Maritime potatoes, and the provision of new equipment. Has the minister conferred with the CNR or was he notified about the announcement to do with the replacement of reefer cars with 110,000 pound insulated boxcars, which are totally inappropriate to the needs of eastern producers? Can he explain why this announcement was made literally hours before the first meeting took place between his task force and representatives of the Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick potato industry?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, Canadian National had indicated to me their belief that some of the insulated boxcars would be suitable equipment for moving potatoes and that compensatory rate requirements would lead to certain increases in rates, of 20 cent and later, I think, 12 per cent. The increases will be imposed in two phases. It was intended that the notice of increase would give advance notice to potato shippers and also to have the increases on the table, since Canadian National intends to proceed with discussions with shippers and others on the subject of equipment and its availability.


JUSTIFICATION FOR PROVISION OF NEW EQUIPMENT TO TRANSPORT POTATOES-CONSULTATIONS WITH PRODUCERS
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since it took six months for the minister's committee to become operational in the consideration of this question, and since there is now to be an extensive study of equipment and costs in the next few months and a report is to be made to the minister I believe by the middle of August, can the minister say in what way the CNR was able to justify the provision of new equipment under those two subsidies, in September and January, when, as I understand it, there is no authority for this to take place? Second, was any determination made with the potato industry of New Brunswick or Prince Edward Island as to whether the equipment which is to be substituted will be adequate or effective, given the potato industry's great objections concerning the use of that equipment?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure to what extent the objections relate to the rate increase rather than to the equipment. The equipment was used in different places previously. It was used to ship potatoes. The equipment Canadian National acquired is not new. By and large, this equipment was in use for the movement of other goods eastward, and it had not been used on the back haul. That meant that Canadian National could offer lower rates than would otherwise be required under the law, which requires rates to be compensatory. As 1 said, there have been informal probings concerning the suitability of the equipment, but the announcement of the rates and discussions which
Oral Questions
are to follow are designed to look at that question more completely.


TELEGLOBE CANADA
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of Communications is not in the House and has been in France I think these past few days I direct my question to the acting Minister of Communications, whoever that may be. Why has Teleglobe refused to go to arbitration in the matter of the strike presently under way by members of the Canadian Overseas Telecommunications Union against Teleglobe? Was the strike among the reasons for the disappointing television coverage of the Jubilee events taking place on the other side of the Atlantic?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the minister I will take that question as notice.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am glad to know who the acting Minister of Communications is- so long as he knows what he is. Since the minister has taken my previous question as notice, could he also draw to the minister's attention my supplementary representation, to prevent an unfortunate situation being further exacerbated? Since the present strike will expand rather than shrink unless certain questions are resolved, I suggest that government facilities, that is to say coastguard equipment and/or helicopters, should not be used to transfer supplies and/or personnel in certain areas in order to maintain some existing plants. I suggest this so that the government of Canada will not be involved in strike-breaking aimed against one of its own Crown corporations.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to pass that representation on, too.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs concerns the approval by the Main Board of Environmental Protection of a licence for the Pittson Refinery near Eastport, Maine. In light of the massive environmental threat that this operation poses to the Head Harbour Passage and neighbouring parts of the New Brunswick coastline and in light of the uncertainty that now exists as to whether the Canadian veto power over the project still applies in respect of international waters, will the minister immediately contact his U.S. counterpart to obtain binding legal assurances that no refinery will be
6470

June 9, 1977
Oral Questions
built until this country is satisfied that the level of risk is acceptable?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I am not certain that that is the route to follow but will certainly look at that possibility. I understand that licences as issued by the state of Maine are conditional upon clearance being obtained from Canada with regard to the transiting of Head Harbour Passage. Our position on it remains, as it has been consistently, that we do not consider this waterway safe for the transit of large oil laden vessels and we have no reason to change our attitude in that regard. The company and other interested parties were all advised of this position some time ago.


J. Robert Howie: Mr. Speaker, 1 thank the minister for his answer, and ask this supplementary question: In view of the increasing level of hazards posed by tanker routes, tanker ports and off-shore drilling operations to both the United States and Canadian coastlines, will the minister be prepared to consider undertaking discussions with the United States with a view to forming a specific joint consultation procedure to deal with high risk projects which are increasingly affecting the adjacent waters of the two countries?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member no doubt knows and as has been mentioned in the House several times in recent weeks in relation to west coast tanker traffic, such discussions with the United States are under way already. They may not take precisely the form the hon. member outlined but we are making progress and I am still of the view that we can reach some satisfactory arrangement with the Americans.


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for multicultural-ism. I refer to an address given by the minister at the Indians of Toronto conference on May 14, I believe, in which he vaguely suggested the government's policy on multicultural-ism. 1 wonder if the minister could be more specific and indicate to the House what the government's permanent policy is on multiculturalism?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question surely, by its very terms, asks the minister to make a general statement on policy.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I remind the minister of his statement in this House on May 2, in which he stated he would provide me with written notice of details of the government's permanent policy on multiculturalism. I have not yet received a reply. Does this means that the government's policies are too numerous to mention or that the government has not any policy on multiculturalism?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is asking the minister to set out certain policies. This would have to be done at some time other than during the question period.


FINANCE
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Has the minister reviewed the remarks made by the economist Douglas Peters, particularly those remarks to the effect that manufacturing, which previously accounted for 27 per cent of employment and now accounts for 22 per cent, could account for only 15 per cent in future years if economic conditions are not put right?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, without confirming those specific figures I would have to say that yes, indeed, that is the trend about which the government is concerned. That trend, and the impact on it of inflation, has been very much the reason for our concern about inflation in Canada.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Did the minister also note Mr. Peters' comments about Canada being half a million jobs short of reasonably full employment levels by the mid-1980s, which would mean Canada is heading for a 10 per cent unemployment rate? Mr. Peters made the point that that will happen unless there are tax reductions including further tax credits, federal sales tax cuts and, in general, more buoyant budgets implemented at the Ottawa level?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I pointed out to Mr. Peters and his companion on the panel who was recommending a cut in personal income tax that, of course, everyone would like a general reduction in taxation, but nobody likes a general reduction in services.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since inflation is at higher levels than anticipated, unemployment is higher than anticipated and real growth is lower, is consideration being given to the introduction of an early budget?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Jacques Lavoie (Hochelaga):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. Since he has been informed of the question, with your permission I shall wait until he is back in the House.
June 9, 1977


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Since the broiler producers' association has been waiting a long time now for the decision of the cabinet on the creation of a marketing board which would meet the long-term interests of consumers, and since the Minister of Agriculture said he was in favour of such a project, is the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs prepared today to support the Minister of Agriculture, so that the project may be announced as soon as possible?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the hon. member that he is correct in referring to the Minister of Agriculture because this particular policy falls under his jurisdiction. I believe his last answer is that cabinet will be considering the matter soon.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed again to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. As that marketing board will have interesting consequences for consumers, can the minister tell the House whether he is willing to support the Minister of Agriculture who seems to need it before he can make the long-awaited announcement?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I prefer to reserve my comments for cabinet where this matter is being considered rather than for the hon. member for Joliette.


PENITENTIARIES
Jacques Lavoie: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General.
In view of the questions put yesterday in the House, and in particular further to one of his replies to the effect that an advisory group made up of representatives of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Canadian Penitentiary Service and the Parole Board will be set up to study the recommendations of the subcommittee on justice and legal affairs, can the minister tell the House whether, after those three weeks have elapsed, when this study group makes recommendations to him on the recommendations of the subcommittee, he will implement the recommendations of the subcommittee or those of the study group, and also whether he will consult the subcommittee? I ask that because the newspapers spoke of the matter this morning leading to some confusion.
Oral Questions


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. Of course, if there is confusion I should like to dispel it as soon as possible. I assigned a group of senior officials in my department the task of studying as quickly as possible the recommendations of the subcommittee and letting me know as soon as possible which of them can be implemented without delay. I gave specific instructions that I be given recommendations to that effect, and not I be given the reasons for which recommendations could not be implemented. Instead, I asked them to indicate which recommendations, of which I am sure there will be a number, could be implemented quickly.


FINANCE
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance and invite the attention of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. My question is based on the fact that although the bank rate in the last two or three years has come down from a high of 9.5 per cent to 7.5 per cent, the chartered banks are still charging 13.5 per cent for consumer loans. Will the government take steps to see to it that ordinary Canadians get the benefit of the reduction in the bank rate?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I will consider the suggestion.


SOCIAL SERVICES
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the hardships being encountered by the handicapped of this country, particularly the blind, will the minister advise what progress is being made with regard to the report "Vision Canada"? Is any action being taken on recommendations that seem to be justified?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the recommendations concerning my department and coming under its responsibility have been acted upon. A number of other recommendations are directed to the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, which is now considering some and acting upon others. We are working closely with the Canadian National Institute for the Blind to implement the recommendations of this report.

June 9, 1977
Oral Questions


POSSIBILITY OF INCREASING ALLOWANCES FOR THE BLIND
Jack Marshall: One
of the main recommendations was with regard to the financial restrictions placed on the blind because of their special needs. Is there any agreement between the minister and the provincial ministers with regard to increasing the allowances afforded to the blind in all provinces, even though the provinces have opted to include them under social assistance?
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: There is nothing to prevent the provinces from increasing their special allowances to the blind. If they decided to go ahead with this, these allowances would remain eligible for the 50 per cent sharing of the costs with the federal government, under the Canada Assistance Plan; the initiative must come from the provinces.
* *
*


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, Canada has indeed put forward a proposal of these specific sectors which might be the basis for negotiations as opposed to across the board tariff cuts. The procedures to be followed not only by Canada but other countries in the multinational trade negotiations are still under negotiation. In other words, there is not yet an agreement on rules. It is too early to say whether the United States or any other country will give that support. I think it is fair to say there is a very full understanding of Canada's position in this regard.


DATE WHEN GATT TALKS LIKELY TO BE COMPLETED
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Can the minister say when he expects the GATT talks going on at Geneva to be completed? Some months ago it was thought that the end of 1978 might be the final date for the completion of the talks and we would move into the new economic order in the early eighties. Is this still the timeframe being looked at or will the talks possibly go as late as 1980?


FINANCE
Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Is Canada's trading position in the current GATT round of talks in Geneva aimed at trading gains in processing of our resources in exchange for opening Canadian markets to manufactured goods from abroad? This is the impression coming out of the talks on Canada's position at the present time. If this is the case, does the minister realize that under present economic conditions in Canada such a policy will mean the end to much manufacturing in this country?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, our objectives are much more complex than that. They would include not only securing better access for Canadian manufactured goods but, as the hon. member mentioned, more highly processed goods in foreign markets. It will also, to an important degree, be directed at trying to reduce the non-tariff restrictions to the importation of Canadian exports which have been so effective in some countries, much more effective than the tariffs in keeping out Canadian exports. Naturally, we expect that we in turn will have to pay for these further advantages in terms of tariff changes in Canada. As I say, our objectives are far more complex than the simple proposition with which the hon. member prefaced his question.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, I realize the objectives are more complex than I stated in my question. However, I wanted to see if I could put that particular feeling on the record in the time available to me. Is Canada still pressing ahead with its sector negotiations and will the United States support Canada's position in pressing for sector talks?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I hope they can be brought to an end before 1980. However, given the experience in the Kennedy and Tokyo rounds up to this point, I think the expectation indicated in Puerto Rico that they would be finished in 1977 is now realized as being unrealistic. Perhaps 1978 may be optimistic.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I have asked the Minister of State (Multiculturalism) (Mr. Guay) a couple of questions in the last month or so since he has assumed the office. He undertook to write me a letter showing that the government has a permanent policy on multiculturalism. On May 2, 1977, as reported at page 5171 of Hansard, he said:
It will take me the better part of about an hour to give all the details the hon. member is requesting. If you will permit me to do so, Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to give them to him. If not, I will give them to him in writing.
I	just wanted to ask the minister today whether he really has a policy and, if so, how long must those who are neither Anglophone nor Francophone in this country have to wait until they learn what it is. Will they have to wait until the next election?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: The reason I did not answer the hon. member is this: he is making a farce of this important subject. That is why I demanded to know yesterday where the hon. member's party stands with regard to multiculturalism.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Where do you stand?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Everybody in this House knows what our policy is with regard to multiculturalism. If the hon. member wishes to have additional information I am quite
June 9, 1977

prepared to meet with him at any time and explain anything he wants to know in relation to the multiculturalism policy because if he is that far behind I believe I should spend a lot of time with him explaining what is going on in my department.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: May I ask the government House leader the usual question as to forthcoming business? 1 do not know whether he is in a position today to designate opposition days, but if he is not perhaps he could do that a little later. Could he tell us, though, what the government business is for today and subsequent days?


Mr. MacEachen:: We shall continue today with the third reading of the bill on metric conversion. After that, certainly beginning tomorrow at the latest, we shall call Bill C-6 having to do with diplomatic immunities. Depending on the outcome of a proposal I shall make to the House in a few moments, we shall then go on with Bill C-3 in relation to Deposit Insurance, Bill C-36 on motor vehicle safety which, I understand, we can deal with through at least the second reading and committee stages, and Bill C-40, the aeronautics bill, which I understand we can also deal with in all stages at least up to third reading, tomorrow.
As hon. members are aware, Bill C-6 is presently before the standing committee. If I am given consent I should like to make a motion to withdraw the bill from the committee so that it can be referred to committee of the whole and dealt with here tomorrow, hopefully through third reading.


Walter David Baker: On behalf of the Official Opposition, I consent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There are some comments I wish to make later but I rise to indicate our agreement with the proposal regarding Bill C-6.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: May I, then, move:
That Bill C-6, an act respecting diplomatic and consular privileges and immunities in Canada be withdrawn from the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence and be referred to the committee of the whole.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion can only be put by unanimous consent. Is there consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the President of the Privy Council. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Business of the House


Stanley Howard Knowles: With regard to the business announced for today and tomorrow, there is a comment I should like to make. I have no objection to the bills he has called but I object very strenuously to his continuing refusal to call Bill C-30 which has to do with the Holidays Act. Some weeks ago the minister gave us a list of the bills he wanted passed before the end of the session. By implication, this left a number of bills which were not considered important. Bill C-30 was on the "wanted" list. In the last few days we have dealt with a number of bills which were on the "unimportant" list, while the government refuses to call Bill C-30. I suggest that instead of scraping the barrel the hon. gentleman should bring forward Bill C-30 and let us see whether we can do something about the proposals it contains.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I believe the division of bills into categories of wanted and unwanted is quite unwarranted. I have not refused to call Bill C-30. I have explained to the hon. member that the moment has not yet arrived. The occasion is not right to call that bill. It may occur later in the session.


Walter David Baker: One question to clarify a statement made earlier by the minister. Is it his intention to call Bill C-6, that is the diplomatic privileges bill, as the first item of government business tomorrow in any event?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, except that if we conclude the debate on the metric conversion bill we would have to consider what business from the list I have given we would call later in the day. Otherwise, that list will be in place tomorrow beginning with the diplomatic privileges measure.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to make a comment on one other point. The House leader for the Official Opposition made reference to the opposition days which remain. Perhaps by tomorrow we can reach an understanding as to which day might be designated next week for us. We would like it to be Thursday, June 16. I understand there is some objection to that day because it would mean the loss of the private members' hour. Discussions are taking place as to whether that private members' hour might be shifted or whether something else might be done along those lines. But I hope it can be Thursday, June 16, without the loss of the private members' hour. Obviously the designation cannot be made today but at least the House now knows what is in store.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I understood yesterday there was agreement in the House that after the minister made his statement on the North-South Conference there would be an opportunity for a limited time to direct questions to the Minister. I was wondering whether this would be an appropriate time at which to proceed along those lines.


Mr. Speaker:: If the House were to agree perhaps we could go ahead with the questions customarily allowed at the end of a ministerial statement. We might do that on orders of the day. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

June 9, 1977
Petitions



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I am now in a position to table a reference to the Administrator under the Anti-Inflation Act with respect to the Souris Valley School Division No. 42.


Mr. Speaker:: This being the customary time to receive petitions, there is some obvious indication of the intention of some members from Newfoundland to table at this time petitions in rather impressive numbers. In order of seniority of entrance into the House-I have some concern about the first two though I am more clear about the last two-and without trying to decide whether the ridings should be announced in alphabetical order or otherwise, the four members are the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall), the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey) and the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie): I understand they now have petitions to table which will be received in the usual way.


FISHERIES
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 67, I wish to present a petition on behalf of my constituents praying that greater protection be given through law to sealers by amending the Fisheries Act and regulations, wherefore it would be an offence for any person in any vehicle or aircraft or boat to come within a defined sealing area without a permit from the Minister of Fisheries.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I too, in order of seniority, wish pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 67 to present a petition signed by 15,536 citizens of Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe, praying that greater protection be given through law to sealers by amending the Fisheries Act and regulations, and that all ways and means of tightening the Fisheries Act and sealing regulations to give adequate support and protection to sealers be explored.


Mr. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I want also to present a petition on behalf of the constituents of Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador, to the effect that the law be tightened in order to give greater protection to sealers, and to keep away from the sealing area those who are

not going there with a bona fide purpose but simply to interfere with people in the lawful carrying out of their work.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 67 I should like to present a petition to the House, 1,871 petitions from 6,024 Newfoundlanders in St. John's West to the same effect, asking for protection for our sealers from publicity seekers and scandal mongers.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 1,269, 1,734, 1,792, 1,794, 1,796, 1,824, 1,854, 1,855, 1,879, 1,958, 2,476 and 2,645.


Mr. Epp: 1.	How many work permits were issued for domestic help for the year (a) 1970 (b) 1971 (c) 1972 (d) 1973 (e) 1974 (f) 1975?
2.	In each case, what was the citizenship, by country, of persons granted work permits as domestics in (a) 1970 (b) 1971 (c) 1972 (d) 1973 (e) 1974 (f) 1975?
3.	Are working conditions and offers of remuneration considered before work permits are granted and, if so, what are the criteria used?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1.	(a), (b) and (c) N/A. Work permits were not introduced until 1973. (d) 3,512. (e) 5,903. (f) 9,154.
2.	(a) N/A; (b) N/A; (c) N/A; (d) England 519, Austria 14, Belgium 1, Denmark 35, Finland 23, France 91, Germany (West) 126, Greece 19, Hungary 3, Irish Republic 10, Italy 7, The Netherlands 19, Norway 5, Poland 39, Portugal 71, Spain 14, Sweden 37, Switzerland 100, U.S.S.R. 1, Yugoslavia 6, Turkey 1, Romania 2, Egypt 4, South Africa, Rep. of 6, Algeria 1, Kenya 1, Morocco 4, Tunisia 2, Gambia 1, Ghana 1, Malagasy Rep. (Madagascar) 1, Nigeria 11, Sierra Leone 1, Sri Lanka 2, Formosa (Taiwan) 5, India 19, Israel 7, Lebanon 6, Japan 28, Pakistan 8, Syria 1, Indonesia 1, Philippines 18, Malaysia, Fed. of 4, Singapore 3, Afghanistan 1, Korea South 1, Thailand 3, Vietnam South 6, Other Asia N.E.S. 1, Australia 22, New Zealand 6, U.S.A. 138, Mexico 17, Costa Rica 3, El Salvador 22, Guatemala 13, Honduras 2, Nicaragua 3, Panama 1, Jamaica 1258, Trinidad & Tobago 210, Barbados 57, Anguilla 3, Antigua 7, Dominica 10, Grenada 25, St. Kitts 3, St. Lucia 7, St. Vincent 27, Dominican Republic 3, Haiti 134, Argentina 12, Brazil 6, Guyana 139, Chile 11, Columbia 20, Peru 17, Uruguay 3, Venezuela 9, Bolivia 1, Ecuador 25, Mauritius 1, Stateless 7. (e) England 1402, Austria 25, Belgium 5, Czechoslovakia 1, Denmark 42, Finland 13, France 163, Germany (West) 107, Greece 20, Hungary 4, Irish Republic 25, Italy 11, The Netherlands 41, Norway 14, Poland 71, Portugal 107, Spain 22, Sweden 58,
June 9, 1977

Switzerland 227, Yugoslavia 9, Turkey 1, Liechtenstein 1, Egypt 6, Rhodesia 1, South Africa, Rep. of 9, Algeria 1, Kenya 1, Morocco 1, Tunisia 1, Benin-People's Rep. of (formerly Dahomey) 1, Ethiopia 5, Ghana 2, Ivory Coast 1, Malagasy Rep. (Madagascar) 1, Mauritania 1, Nigeria 11, Rwanda 2, Senegal 1, Sudan-Democratic Republic of the 1, Upper Volta 1, Sri Lanka 5, China, People's Rep. of 5, India 35, Israel 13, Japan 45, Lebanon 6, Pakistan 8, Iran 3, Philippines 44, Malaysia, Fed. of 10, Singapore 2, Korea South 3, Thailand 11, Australia 47, New Zealand 21, Australasia N.E.S. 1, U.S.A. 165, Mexico 48, Vietnam South 3, Costa Rica 1, El Salvador 39, Guatemala 7, Honduras 2, Nicaragua 3, Panama 1, Jamaica 1725, Trinidad & Tobago 381, Barbados 122, Antigua 18, Dominica 9, Grenada 67, St. Kitts 2, St. Lucia 23, St. Vincent 46, Cuba 1, Dominican Republic 3, Haiti 191, West Indies N.E.S. 2, Argentina 3, Brazil 8, Guyana 142, Chile 20, Columbia 38, Peru 19, Uruguay 4, Venezuela 5, Bolivia 4, Ecuador 26, Mauritius 9, Stateless 10. (f) England 2120, Austria 35, Belgium 7, Czechoslovakia 1, Denmark 70, Finland 19, France 204, Germany (West) 279, Greece 36, Hungary 4, Irish Republic 44, Italy 23, The Netherlands 70, Norway 11, Poland 92, Portugal 162, Spain 24, Sweden 72, Switzerland 387, Yugoslavia 12, Turkey 4, German Democractic Rep. (East) 5, Iceland 1, Liechtenstein 1, Egypt 8, South Africa, Rep. of 16, Algeria 1, Morocco 1, Tunisia 2, Ethiopia 6, Ghana 8, Mauritania 3, Nigeria 7, Rwanda 2, Senegal 2, Sudan-Democratic Rep. of the 2, Upper Volta 1, Sri Lanka 28, China, People's Rep. of 6, Formosa (Taiwan) 5, India 53, Israel 16, Japan 31, Lebanon 7, Pakistan 7, Syria 5, Cyprus 2, Indonesia 6, Iran 6, Jordan 1, Philippines 81, Malaysia, Fed. of 10, Singapore 2, Korea 1,
Order Paper Questions
Korea South 2, Nepal 3, Thailand 10, Australia 56, New Zealand 24, Australasia N.E.S. 1, U.S.A. 159, Mexico 79, Costa Rica 4, El Salvador 32, Guatemala 12, Honduras 8, Nicaragua 9, Panama 4, Jamaica 2760, Trinidad & Tobago 664, Barbados 103, Anguilla 1, Antigua 27, Bahamas 14, Dominica 30, Grenada 132, St. Kitts 6, St. Lucia 36, St. Vincent 68, Dominican Republic 14, Haiti 317, West Indies N.E.S. 11, Argentina 5, Brazil 20, Guyana 287, Chile 30, Columbia 37, Peru 33, Uruguay 2, Venezuela 7, Bolivia 7, Ecuador 13, Fiji 1, Mauritius 11, Stateless 26.
3.	A work permit will be authorized only after the working conditions and attendant salary are carefully considered. These factors must conform to normal standards for the area, and must be sufficient to interest qualified Canadians if available.


Mr. Herbert: By province, since 1974, what amount of loans was approved for sewage treatment projects and, in each case, what is the federal forgiveness of loan principal and/or interest?


Ralph Goodale: In so far as the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is concerned: Since 1974, the department has approved loans of $438,404 (Manitoba) and $260,565 (Saskatchewan) for sewage treatment projects under the Agricultural Services Centres Programme. The federal forgiveness of loan principal and/or interest in all cases is nil.
In so far as Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is concerned: See Table 1 following.
Table 1
Loans Approved for Sewage Treatment Projects, NHA Section 51
Number	1974' $000	by Province, Forgiveness3 4 $000	1974-1976 Number	19751 $000	Forgiveness3 $000	Number	1976 2 $000	Forgiveness3 $000Newfoundland	7	2,365	85	25	3,838	399	25	6,784	215Prince Edward Island	7	1,771	348	2	88	11	1 33	118	340Nova Scotia	25	5,187	604	30	9,510	1,601	6,355	2,645New Brunswick	17	7,248	684	21	10,059	362	28	8,634	1,373Quebec Ontario	98	74,260	2,766	86	75,750	2,809	117	106,865	5,367119	87,082	6,988	98	61,221	12,810	107	94,352	16,300Manitoba	25	7,962	118	18	7,092	1,276	22	4,549	1,032Saskatchewan	15	2,067	95 ,	8	1,266	52	14	2,319	824Alberta	46	8,452	1,321 '	-	4-302	1,332	22	4,871	2,866British Columbia	32	21,367	4,085	27	15,350	5,238	36	20,650	6,178Northwest Territories	-	4 -7	53	1	133	-	-	Yukon Territory	-	-	-	-	-	-	Canada	391	217,754	71,147	316	184,005	25,830	405	255,497	37,1401	Data are net.2	Data are gross.3	Determined when a loan is fully advanced and placed on repayment.4	Reduction in a loan initially approved in an earlier year.
June 9, 1977
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Crosbie: 1.	Was an application made to the Canadian Radio-Television Commission by Mr. Colin Jamieson of St. John's, Newfoundland on behalf of a company to be incorporated to be known as Beothic Broadcasting for a licence to operate a 25,000 Watt AM radio station in St. John's on a frequency of 850 and, if so (a) on what date was it first received by the CRTC (b) did any revisions have to be made in it before acceptance and, if so, on what date was the revised application received (c) on what date was the hearing now set for March 1, 1977 before the CRTC first advertised in the (i) Canada Gazette (ii) newspapers circulating in the general area of St. John's, Newfoundland?
2.	Does CRTC have established policies to ensure competition and widely held ownership in the radio and TV media in Canada and the provinces and, if so, what are they?
3.	Does CRTC attempt to prevent corporate concentrations of ownership and family concentrations of ownership in the field of licensing radio and TV stations and, if so, what is the policy and how is it applied?


Mr. Ross Milne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) has submitted the following: 1. Yes. (a) November 4, 1976; (b) The application as such was not revised and resubmitted. Additional information was requested and received to be added to the application. Any application may be revised at any time prior to gazetting, (c)
(i)	January 24, 1977; (ii) February 1, 1977.
2.	Anyone can apply to establish a broadcasting undertaking. Persons wishing to apply are reminded of certain eligibility requirements laid down by the Governor-in-Council (in P.C. 1969-02229 and as amended in P.C. 1972-1569). The commission would consider any application meeting these eligibility requirements. The commission has asked for applications from anyone meeting these requirements to establish: (a) third TV services in various locations (Vancouver, Edmonton, Montreal, Quebec), (b) Cable systems in many areas, (c) FM stations following the FM policy.
3.	The commission has frequently expressed the view that while the Canadian Broadcasting system will of necessity contain a certain number of large units, there must be maintained within it a degree of diversity of ownership etc. This view is expressed in commission's decisions CRTC 72-316 and CRTC 68-39.


Mr. Crosbie: 1.	How many (a) radio (b) TV stations of CJON Radio and Television Network owned and operated by Newfoundland Broadcasting Company Limited are licensed and operate in Newfoundland and Labrador and where are they located?
2.	How many FM radio station licences have been issued to CJON Radio and TV Network or to the Newfoundland Broadcasting Company Limited or whatever company or companies control the CJON network?
3.	Who are the owners of the issued shares of the Newfoundland Broadcasting Company Limited or whatever company or companies own and control and operate the CJON Radio and TV Network and if the shares are held in the name of a trustee or trustees who are the beneficial owners?
4.	How many shares of the Company or companies are owned (a) by Mr. Geoffrey Stirling (b) beneficially by the Honourable Donald Jamieson?

5.	Is Colin Jamieson the owner of any share or shares in the Company or companies?


William Ross Milne: The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) has submitted the following: 1. (a) Five (AM) radio undertakings; (b) 22 TV undertakings; AM radio undertakings: CJCR Gander, CJOX Grand Bank, CJCN Grand Falls, CJON St. John's, CJNW Musgravetown; TV undertakings: CJAP-TV Argentia; CJCV-TV Clarenville; CJLW-TV Deer Lake; CJOX-TV-1 Grand Bank; CJWN-TV-6 Irishtown; CJMA-TV Marystown; CJPQ-TV Port-aux-Basques; CJRR-TV Red Rocks; CJON-TV St. John's; CJON-TV-4 St. John's; CJSV Stephenville; CJWB-TV Bonavista; CJWN-TV Corner Brook; CJGN-TV Gander; CJCN-TV Grand Falls; CJLN-TV Lawn; CJWN-TV-5 Pasadena; CJRA-TV Ramea; CJST-TV St. Albans; CJON-TV-5 St. John's; CJSH-TV St. Shotts; CJSC-TV Swift Current.
2.	Nine FM licences have been issued to Newfoundland Broadcasting Company Limited.
3.	G. W. Stirling, G. Scott Stirling, Alan Waters and A. C. Lloyd Fludson hold the issued shares, however, the share issued to G. Scott Stirling is beneficially owned by G. W. Stirling and the shares held by A. Waters and A. C. Lloyd Hudson are held in trust for the Honourable Donald Jamieson.
4.	(a) 152 shares; (b) 148 shares.
5.	No.


Mr. Crosbie: 1.	Did the CRTC announce a decision that cable TV operators are required to pay 25 cents to the CJON Radio and TV Network in Newfoundland as compensation for each person hooked up to the system and, if so, what are the reasons for the decision?
2.	Was a decision made by CRTC to award FM radio station licences to the CJON Network and, if so (a) on what date (b) how many licences were awarded (c) were all the licences issued to the owners of the CJON Radio and TV Network and, for what reasons?


William Ross Milne: The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) has submitted the following: 1. The commission granted monthly subscriber fees which would include a subsidy to the off-air broadcaster (25 cents per subscriber per month when 15,000 subscribers are attained and for five years thereafter.) However, this portion of the fee may only be charged to the subscriber at such time as the licensee actually transfers these funds to the broadcasters-This applies to the St. John's and Corner Brook licensees. (It should be noted that the 250 per subscriber per month was proposed by the applicant and subsequently approved by the Commission).
2. Yes. (a) Decision CRTC 76-735 dated October 4, 1976; (b) Nine licences; (c) Yes, a Public announcement dated July 4, 1975 called for applications of FM licences for the Mari-
June 9, 1977

times and Newfoundland. Only Newfoundland Broadcasting Company Limited and David Ruskin, representing a company to be incorporated, applied and were successful.


Mr. Smith (Churchill): 1.	What is being done to ensure that provincial schools are providing the best possible education for the approximately 37,000 Indian children in their schools?
2.	How many Indian students have graduated from provincial high schools in the past 10 years and how many lived at home and commuted to nearby provincial schools?
3.	At what level is the drop-out rate the greatest in schools (a) on reserves (b) off reserves attended by Indian children who commute from home daily?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. The department has taken a number of steps to ensure that provincial schools are providing the best possible education for Indian children attending provincial schools. These steps include (a) the introduction of tuition agreements between the Department and individual school boards negotiated with the full participation of the Indian bands whose children attend the schools. These tuition agreements provided for special educational needs as indicated by the parents of the children. The special services provided nr* under these agreements are varied but include such curriculum ^ areas as language training, cultural curriculum content related to the background of the Indian children, Indian history, etc. (\	(b) The Department is regularly providing provincial school
boards with information regarding the sources of materials which they can include in their school program, their libraries; etc. For example, the Department has compiled lists of books written for, by or about Indians and made these lists available to provincial school boards and other interested parties, (c) In the provinces of Manitoba and New Brunswick general agreements between this Department and the provincial Departments of Education have been entered into covering the attendance of Indian children in the schools of those provinces. The agreements were drawn up with the full participation of the provincial Indian organizations. In the case of Manitoba the agreement is re-negotiated annually and the Manitoba Indian Brotherhood is a third party signatory to the agreement. (d) In British Columbia a general agreement between the Department and the Provincial Department of Education has been in effect since 1969 but is currently under review by the Provincial Department, the Indians of British Columbia and this Department-the review being for the purpose of finding a vehicle for the delivery of special programs to meet the special needs of Indian children attending provincial schools there.
2. The Department does not maintain records in such a manner to permit a complete response to this question. We can only indicate that the enrolment of Indian students at the high school level has been increasing at the rate of approximately 8.6% annually. This figure applies to Indians in attendance at all high schools and includes those who commute and those who board away from home for school attendance purposes.
Order Paper Questions
The figures for those who commute are not segregated in our records.
3. We do not have accurate information, but from the material which we have reviewed and from discussions with the regions, it is estimated that the drop-out rate by Indian students from all schools is greatest at the grade 9 level.


COMMUNICATIONS FROM SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EXTERNAL AFFAIRS TO CRTC
Mr. Crosbie: 1.	Has the Chairman or any member of the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission received any communications from the Secretary of State for External Affairs since January 1, 1976, whether written or verbal and, if so, in each case (a) what was the date of the communication (b) was it in writing or verbal (c) what was the nature of the representation?
2.	Has the Chairman or any member of the Commission received any submissions or suggestions or representations from the Secretary of State for External Affairs since January 1, 1976 with reference to radio or television broadcasting or communications in Newfoundland, cable television or any other matter relating in any way to the radio-television and telecommunications field in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and, if so, in each case (a) on what date (b) what was the nature of the submission or representation (c) to whom was it addressed?


William Ross Milne: In so far as the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission is concerned: 1 and 2. No.


LICENCE TO CJON TO OPERATE RADIO STATION AT GANDER UNDER LETTERS CJCR
Mr. Crosbie: 1.	Was a licence issued by the CRTC to the Radio and Television Network CJON in Newfoundland for the operation of a radio station at Gander, Newfoundland under the letters CJCR and, if so (a) on what date (b) was it subject to any conditions and what were they?
2.	Was it a condition of the issuance of any licence to operate a radio station at Gander, Newfoundland by CJON that it establish a studio in Gander for local programming by CJON?
3.	(a) Is Radio Station CJCR still on the air in Gander, Newfoundland carrying radio transmission from Radio Station CJCN in Grand Falls (b) did the Gander studio CJCR close and, if so, on what date (c) did local programming from Gander by CJCR cease and, if so, on what date?
4.	Is Radio Station CJCR of Gander, Newfoundland now operating in accordance with the conditions that govern the issuance of its licence to operate?


William Ross Milne: The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) has submitted the following: 1. Yes. (a) July 27, 1973; (b) No special conditions other than those conditions that apply to all broadcasting undertakings.
2.	No.
3.	(a) CJCR Gander is still on the air and is licenced to receive its programming part-time from its own studio at Gander, and part-time from studios at St. John's, and Grand Falls, (b) Not that we are aware; (c) Not that we are aware.
4.	Yes, as far as we are aware.

June 9, 1977
Order Paper Questions ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINANTS ACT


Mr. Brisco: 1.	(a) How many employees were hired to manage the Environmental Contaminants Act (b) how many are on the payroll at present (c) where are they located?
2.	(a) How many employees are classified as Inspectors (b) where are they located (c) how many companies are reporting or have reported to the proper authorities under the Act?
3.	(a) How many charges have been laid under the Act (b) for what reason were the charges laid (c) what were the general nature of the complaints?
4.	(a) What was the total additional cost to the Department for salaries (b) what is the salary breakdown?


Ralph Goodale: In so far as the Departments of Fisheries, the Environment and National Health and Welfare are concerned: 1. (a) Since proclamation of the Environmental Contaminants Act on April 1, 1976, thirteen employees have been hired to manage the Act. (b) There are 29 employees in the Environmental Protection Service engaged directly in the management of the Environmental Contaminants Act. Under other authorities in DFE (e.g. Fisheries Act, Migratory Birds Convention Act), approximately 230 employees are engaged for part of their time in activities (e.g. research, monitoring) which are related to the needs of the Environmental Contaminants Act. (c) Eighteen of the 29 EPS employees are at Ottawa and the remaining 11 are located at the five regional EPS offices in Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, Edmonton and Vancouver. The other 230 DFE employees engaged in related activities are located at 29 offices and laboratories across Canada. In Health and Welfare no additional employees were hired to manage the Environmental Contaminants Act. Implementation of the Act is effected by officials of the Environmental Health Directorate in the course of their responsibilities to protect the public health in the light of environmental concerns. Departmental officials are members of the Environmental Contaminants committee which meets regularly.
2.	(a) Action is now underway to designate inspectors prior to the promulgation of the first Environmental Contaminants Act Regulations, (b) N/A. (c) Seventy Companies have reported, as required by subsection 4(6) of the Act, an involvement for the first time with 340 products. Approximately 150 of these products are chemical compounds.
3.	(a) No charges have been laid under the Act. (b) N/A. (c) N/A.
4.	(a) The annual cost to the Department of Fisheries and the Environment for salaries for the thirteen additional employees is $250,000. (b) The salary breakdown is: Professional staff, $182,000; Support staff, $68,000.


PEACE AND SECURITY PROGRAMME
Mr. Woolliams: 1.	What components of the Peace and Security Programme are comprised in the Solicitor General's Police Prescriptive Packages for Crime Prevention?
2.	What sources were consulted for the information that makes up, or that will make up the information included in the packages?

3.	What is the complete subject complement of the packages and how many of the subjects (a) are now prepared (b) are being prepared (c) have been mailed to law enforcement agencies?


Francis Fox: 1. Under the Peace and Security Programme, funds for the research development and implementation of prescriptive packages were provided. In addition, funds were allocated to hire a national consultant who would assist local police authorities in the implementation of prescriptive policing programmes.
2.	The Secretariat Steering Committee on preventive policing has relied on the expertise of the national consultant on preventive policing, who is seconded to the Ministry from the Vancouver City Police Department, the Officer in Charge, Crime Prevention Centre, RCMP and the Chairman, Crime Prevention Committee, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. Further consultation will be undertaken with the Ministry Advisory Board on Preventive Policing. In addition to the RCMP and the CACP, the Canadian Police College, and the Canadian Police Association are represented on the Advisory Board.
3.	The Steering Committee is currently in consultation with the Crime Prevention Centre, RCMP and the Crime Prevention Committee, CACP, on the question of which preventive policing programmes are to be given priority. Tentative preferences indicate a high priority being given to (i) Police/Com-munity Relations, (ii) Operation Identification (iii) Family Crisis Intervention, (iv) Counter-Vandalism, (v) Team Policing. (a) Of the programmes referred to above, the Committee has received a first draft of Operation Identification, (b) Other programmes must await further confirmation by the RCMP and CACP. Confirmation is expected shortly, (c) No programmes have been distributed to police forces at this date.


CONSTRUCTION OF HOSTEL FACILITIES FOR SENIOR CITIZENS ON OLD STADIUM PROPERTY, MONCTON, N.B.
Mr. Jones: 1.	Has the government or any department or agency been contacted with respect to funding construction for hostel facilities for senior citizens on the old Stadium property, St. George Street, Moncton, New Brunswick and, if so, were representations made by the New Brunswick Housing Corporation, the Provincial Government, the Moncton City Council and, if not, by whom and what are the details?
2.	Have representations been made to the government or any department or agency, for any development for senior citizens on the Stadium property and, if so, by whom and what are the details?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the Departments of National Health and Welfare and Urban Affairs as follows: Nil.


TRANSPORTATION OF FEED GRAINS
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): For the fiscal year (a) 1975-76 (b) 1976-77, what amounts were paid in subsidies for the transportation of feed grain in (i) British Columbia (ii) Quebec (iii) the Maritimes?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: June 9, 1977

(a)	1975-76
(i)	$ 2,997,648
(ii)	10,169,825
(iii)	4,007,763
(b)	1976-77
(i)	S2.060.132
(ii)	5,125,422
(iii)	3,904,128


QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, if questions No. 1699 and 1795 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.

1975-76 ANNUAL REPORT OF DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY, TRADE AND COMMERCE


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): 1.	Does the 1975-76 Annual Report of the Department oflndustry, Trade and Commerce state that the Department has "encouraged specialization in high-technology, sophisticated manufacturing" and, if so, what percentage of the budget for research has gone towards encouraging labour intensive, smaller-scale technologies appropriate to the development needs of Atlantic Canada?
2.	Apart from seed potato promotion, what new marketing efforts has the Department undertaken to assist products solely or primarily produced in (a) the Atlantic provinces (b) Eastern Quebec?
3.	What percentage, by region, was spent in each of the past three years under the (a) Promotional Projects Programme (b) Programme for Export Market Development (c) Programme to Enhance Productivity?
4.	What percentage of the value of Canadian exports to (a) the USA (b) all other countries, came from the Atlantic Region?
Return tabled.


RADIO STATIONS OPERATING IN NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR
Mr. Crosbie: What are the names and locations of each (a) AM radio (b) FM radio (c) TV station operating in Newfoundland and Labrador and, in each case, who is the owner and, if any are owned by limited liability companies, what are the names of the shareholders of each?
Return tabled.
* *
*


STARRED QUESTION
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred question No. 1,923?
Order Paper Questions


SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
Mr. Fairweather: 1.	Is consideration being given to reducing or ending the financial commitment to encourage social development and citizen participation?
2.	Does the Secretary of State agree that through citizen participation and voluntary initiative, voluntary organizations help strengthen Canadian unity?
3.	How does the Department of the Secretary of State reconcile the objective of strengthening national unity while de-emphasizing the encouragement of voluntary action?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: 1. No. A task Force has recently terminated its examination of departmental objectives, programs and structures and although no final decision has yet been taken with respect to its recommendations, the report does foresee continued support for and reliance on the voluntary sector to enable the department to achieve its objectives.
2.	See Beauchesne No. 171 (w) and (bb).
3.	See reply 1.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday I rose in the House to draw attention to the fact that questions 29, 30, 41 and a number of others pertaining to the use of government aircraft for private and political purposes by members of the cabinet had not been answered. 1 drew attention to the fact that I had risen on this matter a number of times without gaining any reply. I ended my remarks by asking whether the parliamentary secretary would please give an indication at that time when these questions would be answered. His reply does not appear in Hansard and I feel it must be an error of some sort, but he replied very clearly, as heard by all members on this side of the House, in these words: "When the member for Leeds becomes civil".
It occurs to me, Mr. Speaker, that questions in this House asked by members of the opposition should be answered in the interest of parliament and the Canadian people not on the basis of what the government happens to think politically of a member of the opposition. This destroys the whole purpose of asking questions in the House. Questions should be answered when the information is ready. This information should not be withheld from public and from parliament, Mr. Speaker, simply because somebody over there does not like somebody over here. I think that is a pretty invalid excuse. If that is the way things are going to continue, then I think it explains exactly why so many questions stand on the order paper unanswered for so many months. I think it is high time something was done in this House to bring to a head the fact that questions are outstanding for a year, some going on for two years, including the ones to which I am referring. Obviously, the government has the information and has had plenty of time to compile it. It can only be withholding the information because it is politically embarrassing. I think it is a very

June 9, 1977
Order Paper Questions
poor excuse; the government should follow proper parliamentary process.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the gratuitous explanation which the hon. member has just given as to his imagined reasons why the answers to those particular questions have not yet been forthcoming in the House is just that-gratuitous and imagined. I think it is important to note that on the final day of the last session of this parliament we were in a position to provide responses to, I believe, nearly 600 questions on the order paper. On that day last fall I rose in my place and asked for the required unanimous consent to allow us to provide the answers to these questions; that unanimous consent was denied notably by the hon. member for Leeds. As a result, those questions could not be answered at that time.
It has been suggested that that really did not cause very great difficulty because all we needed to do was take a little correcting fluid and change the dates and the numbers of the questions, xerox them all over again and produce them in the House a few days later. This process, as those who have preceded me in the position of parliamentary secretary know, is not that simple; it does require that the questions be reprocessed. It is significant that most of these questions are not simple one-line questions requiring simple one-line answers. In many cases they are multiple part questions which are directed not just to one minister or to one agency but possibly to 40 or more agencies. We do require some time to reprocess and update these answers, to make the changes in the timeframe required so as to make sure the answers are complete and accurate in every respect. So it is not a simple job of xeroxing.
As I pointed out in the House last fall, the fact that the answers could not be given on the last day of the last session probably cost, in terms of manpower and office and clerical time, something in the order of $170,000 to process the questions again. Many of these questions appeared on the order paper in the new session of parliament, along with some 2,300 new questions on the order paper. So we have a situation where there is a very substantial volume of work which has to be done.
If my memory serves me correctly, as at the beginning of this week something in the order of 2,700 questions had been asked in this session of parliament since it began last fall. It is significant that nearly 70 per cent of those questions have in fact been answered to this date, which leaves a small number outstanding at the moment. Many of the questions which are still outstanding appeared on the order paper only in the course of the last couple of weeks when many multiple part questions appeared on the order paper, adding to the list of questions which now have to be answered. There are not many in the category of questions outstanding for a lengthy period of time. I can assure Your Honour, the House and hon. members who have voiced their concern about this question today and in the past, that we are attempting to provide answers to all questions within the shortest possible time.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt) had the floor on a point of order.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I rise to correct one thing said by the parliamentary secretary, which I believe is inaccurate in his quoting of my remarks.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: He has made a statement I did not make, and I feel I should have the right to correct it.


Mr. Speaker:: That may be a matter of dispute between the parties, which can be taken up at some other time. Each has contributed to the point of order, and there is no machinery for the process to continue any farther than that.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Then, Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt) on a question of privilege.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I do not want to take any further time of the House, but I want to say that the questions I referred to were not the ones to which the parliamentary secretary referred. Therefore, I feel my remarks have been distorted.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, order. The hon. member for Leeds is clearly taking up a disagreement with the hon. parliamentary secretary. That is a matter of debate and disagreement. It is not a matter of order and it is not a question of privilege.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to the revised procedure for the month of June, I wish to inform the House that the questions to be raised at six o'clock p.m. are as follows: the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson)-Health-Possibility of controlling use of tobacco; the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga)-Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation-Basis on which funds distributed to provinces; and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)- Veterans Affairs-Inquiry whether disability pension will be restored to 1972 value.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) raised some time ago a question of privilege in regard to the release of certain information in connection with the work of the subcommittee on penitentiaries. At that time, I indicated it

might be opportune to leave that question until the report of the subcommittee on penitentiaries had been received here in the House. That report has been received, and I should like to indicate that I will be prepared to hear further discussion on the point from any members who wish to contribute. The most convenient time for doing that will be Tuesday upon orders of the day. Therefore, if there are any members who wish to contribute to that point before 1 make a decision on it, 1 will hear discussion on Tuesday at approximately three o'clock.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to the agreement made earlier today, we can now proceed with questions to the hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) with respect to the statement he made yesterday. At the conclusion of these proceedings yesterday, I believe the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) was about to ask a question.


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for the hon. Minister which I will pose concurrently, if the Chair agrees. First, I would like to ask the minister if the $1 billion special action program will cover the demands or the requests of developing countries for better compensatory financing facilities, or will this be in the area of special direct assistance? If not, I would like to ask the minister, while there was no agreement on compensatory facilities, does he expect that the International Monetary Fund or other bodies, other than United Nations agencies, will be discussing this matter shortly?
My second question is in regard to the disagreement on adjustment assistance programs. This seems to be something which will be national in scope, and I am wondering what the nature of that disagreement was. Does it mean that western industrialized countries have not agreed as to the kind of adjustment program they would implement, or was there a disagreement between the developing countries and the developed countries on that point?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the special action program in the amount of $1 billion, subscribed to by the industrialized countries, is not a form of compensatory financing. It is a rapidly dispersing outlay of funds through multilateral and bilateral channels in order to help the poorest countries and indirectly assist them with their debt problems.
On the question of compensatory financing, it is unfortunate that we did not reach an agreement on this question. We were very close to an agreement in the final stages of the conference. Even though the item is registered as disagreed, we were almost at agreement. The agreement was not possible because of difficulties which certain G8 members had with respect to the possible role of UNCTAD in the development committee of the International Monetary Fund. It indicates that an
International Economic Conference assessment solely based upon the listing of agreed or disagreed items is not a very good way of looking at the results. In certain areas we did make a good deal of progress, although total agreement was not reached, and compensatory financing was one of them.
On the question of adjustment assistance, I must confess to a certain lack of knowledge on that question because I was not involved directly in the negotiations on adjustment assistance at any time. The general question which was dealt with in that particular negotiating group was adjustment in terms of the production of industrialized countries or the withdrawal from production of certain lines in industrialized countries in order to permit equivalent production to be undertaken in developing countries. It was not possible to reach agreement on that over-all question because of the difficulties that such a radical decision, taken at this stage, would have on the employment of developed countries. I am sure this is another item which will be continued in future dialogue between the North and South.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is related to the question posed by the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) concerning the special action program. In view of the fact there has been a decline in our official development assistance in the past couple of years from .58 to .51, even in spite of the minister's own commitment in September of 1975 when the government was officially committed to reaching .7, can the minister indicate whether contribution through the special action fund will represent any kind of significant increase in our official development assistance? I would also like to know whether we made any further commitments or indicated whether we would attempt to reverse the present trend with respect to official development assistance?
Since the minister indicated that some of the items in the "not agreed" column were very close to agreement, such as compensatory financing, and since there is nothing specific in the communique about a follow-up, can he indicate what kind of follow-up might take place in light of his comments when he spoke directly to the Secretary of State for External Affairs concerning Canada playing a continuing lead in the North-South dialogue initiated in Paris? Can he indicate specifically what he had in mind and how that will take place?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, unfortunalety or fortunately, the conference on international economic co-operation terminated even though, at a certain stage in the closing of the conference, there was an increasing desire on both sides to continue the conference. In a few months or longer, it may be that we will all regret that the conference has not been maintained.
At the present time, the follow-up is taking place in one form, for example, at the heads of government meeting in London. There will be a session of the General Assembly of the United Nations this fall on development in which the results of this conference will be assessed. There will be a negotiating session in November, I believe, in Geneva on the common fund. Beyond that I do not have further details,

June 9, 1977
International Economic Conference
except, 1 believe, it would be a good thing for Canada to maintain its role, a leading role in this dialogue, I hope.
On the question of special action, the hon. member has raised some questions about Canada's commitment. As did most G8 countries at the conference, we have reaffirmed our decision to reach the 0.7 per cent target, and we also, as 1 recollect, undertook an annual increase in our aid budget. Hon. members should bear in mind that last year and in the current year we have increased the aid budget by more than $100 million, so that the budget now is in excess of $1,100 million. We will strive to maintain that in volume terms, and, as a matter of fact, by reaffirming our decision to reach the objective we will attempt, obviously, to reverse any further declines.
On the question of aid flows 1 hope it will not be overlooked that in the case of Japan, for example, that country undertook to double its aid flows in the next five years. The United States undertook to increase its aid flows substantially over the next several years. The two commitments from these two industrial powers represent a transfer of resources in the billions of dollars. These are all results of the Conference on International Economic Co-operation. I feel, therefore, that the industrialized countries, if their rather enormous efforts at the conference are not recognized, will be discouraged from making further additional efforts, and that is why I think it rather unfortunate that more recognition was not given in our communique to efforts that have been made by the western countries in the field of aid flows in the sense that it was somewhat revolutionary when we consider the state of play about three or four months ago.


Mr. Stanfield:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the minister who has already given his best guess as to where the dialogue will go from here and how it will be conducted. I would like to ask the minister whether he would take some opportunity, if it is going to be his continued responsibility, to outline to parliament on some occasion this summer just what Canada's global approach to this problem of international disparity is, bearing in mind that direct aid is important and bearing in mind that, in my judgment, the expectations of the developing countries from commodity agreements are vastly inflated. They are likely to lead to considerable disappointment because I cannot imagine those agreements having the effect that any such countries might expect.
Bearing in mind also that so much of what transpires in the country depends on social structures and many other aspects, I would like to ask the minister whether it is not possible, even in our own country, to move from rhetoric to something more concrete. I do not minimize the difficulties of this because most of us realize the difficulty in dealing satisfactorily with regional disparity in our own country, but perhaps the minister could respond in this way. Are we not engaged to a very considerable extent in rhetoric in this international area? Admittedly some countries are paying large sums of money

and doing something. Are we not engaged mostly in rhetoric and very little in concrete programs that would give some hope of substantially reducing international disparity?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I agree that there has been a great deal of rhetoric in the field of international development. One of the advantages of this restricted but representative forum of 27 nations is that rhetoric has been considerably reduced, although there is still some. All through CIEC we have not heard much about apartheid or these other important political questions that have always come up in the discussion of north-south relations.
The hon. member asked when we will get down to concrete cases. I will name just a certain number of concrete situations or concrete results. There was a commitment on the part of all participants to support the common fund as a new entity and a key instrument in the field of commodity stabilization. That is concrete. There have been very concrete results in the field of food and agriculture, and there has been a new commitment to a decade of infrastructure in Africa, particularly in the field of transportation. I believe that what CIEC has yielded is a more concrete approach in specific areas than has hitherto been the case. I would agree with the opening comment made by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield), which in a sense re-echoes the statement made by the foreign minister of France following the conference when he said that CIEC has ended with a positive result and valuable gains have been acquired, such as the common fund, the special action, the African decade of transportation and communication.
Then, he went on to say that the disappointments expressed by some G19 countries have been expressed against unrealistic hopes, or, as the hon. member says, unrealistic expectations. One of the difficulties is that there are unreal expectations. It seems to me that because of the interaction and the negotiating between senior political people from both groups of countries a good deal of rhetoric has been swept aside, but I do not think the job has been finished by any means.


Mr. Sharp:: I would like to follow with a question similar to the one asked by the hon. member for Halifax. It is related to two specific proposals that have been before the CIEC conference. It seems to me that in Canada and in many other countries there has been a good deal of what might be termed as unnatural optimism about the possibility of certain proposals being accepted. I want to ask the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) therefore, two questions related to these proposals. The first is related to the question of stabilization and indexation of the export price of commodities. Like the hon. member for Halifax I have been rather skeptical. The question I would like to ask the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) is whether in his view there was any clarification of the implications of these proposals at that time. For example, would the export commodities of Canada be stabilized and indexed if such a system were to be brought into effect?
June 9, 1977

The second question relates to debt moratoria, and one of the neglected aspects of this has been the effect upon the credit standing of countries which go in for debt moratoria. I want to ask whether at the conference there was any meeting of the minds on the extent to which forgiveness of debts or debt moratoria affects the credit standing of the countries concerned and their ability to finance their future development.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the two questions raised by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Sharp) were uppermost at a certain stage in the thinking of the developing countries, but it was the objective of the industrialized countries, even before the ministerial conference to make it clear that it would be impossible to meet their requests on indexation and on over-all debt forgiveness. It is clear, as the hon. member said, that certain developing countries, even though they generally espouse the position, were not very keen on themselves being subjected to an over-all debt relief because of the risks the hon. member mentioned.
Certainly at no point did the industrialized countries conceal from the developing countries the position we took on both these points, but it is interesting that on price stabilization here again we clarified the situation to the point where we had a good deal of agreement, even though we were unable to reach a final agreement. A future forum will perhaps determine that. What the industrialized countries were talking about particularly was the possibility of price stabilization around a long-term market trend, to make that the guide and then to relate that factor and other factors to individual commodity agreements. The Europeans and the Americans circulated a paper on debt, and I think the situation has been [DOT]clarified. Discussions were quite intense on this point. I think the next time we have a discussion on debt, we will be having it on a new threshold. The general request for a debt moratorium will be realized as one of the unachievable expectations of the developing countries, and I think these are achievements in clarifying what we can do together.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think it would be unfair not to recognize those who sought to be recognized yesterday, and today we will conclude the questioning with the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) and the hon. member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme).


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I have a request and two questions to put to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. McEachen). The request has to do with the communique. Because of the importance of the communique and the interest of hon. members in it, I suggest that it be tabled and become part of Hansard. If that cannot be done within the rules, I suggest that it be made part of the proceedings of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence because, as the minister knows, we are studying this particular matter in the subcommittee.
My first question deals with facing the debt problems. While the minister did mention his disappointment that the
International Economic Conference OPEC countries did not agree to deal with the energy aspect and their contribution to our present problems, the OPEC countries do make contributions to debt relief for the less favoured countries of this world, and I wonder whether there are any figures or proportions the minister can give us to show the contribution of the OPEC countries either to the common fund or to the debt problem to assist the less favoured nations to meet their great burdens brought on by the increase in energy prices.
My second question relates to how I should interpret the last phrase in the minister's statement, which is as follows:
In conclusion-and I hope this is listened to by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson)-I believe it is important that Canada continue to play a leading role in the area of north-south relations in the post-ClEC period.
This suggests to me that this is a handover from the President of the Privy Council to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) of those responsibilities which he had in this conference.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not if he could help it.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, when I left the Department of External Affairs, if that is the correct way of putting it-


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is not the way
we understood it.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -I was asked if I would continue with my responsibility for the Conference on International Economic Co-operation, and now that that conference is terminated, I am really defunct in that field. I have no more responsibilities except the final flourishes to the conference which may take place at the United Nations or elsewhere. That is why I was, as it were, handing the torch to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Directly on the quetion of the OPEC contribution, we had very interesting negotiations in the final hours of the conference on two texts, one on the general text on official development assistance and the other on the special action, in which the industrialized countries wanted to broaden the definition of the contributors to include all others, and the developing countries fought very hard to have these broadened references taken out of the text. For example, the OPEC ministers argued with me that even though they have been making very substantial contributions-and they have been-they are not in the same position as developed countries because they are underdeveloped countries, as many of them are, and their assets are derived from a non-renewable or a declining resource. For those reasons they were not ready to have their role in this field put on a par with that of the developed countries. As a matter of fact, in the interests of a positive conclusion the industrialized countries withdrew some definitions from the text on official development assistance. It did not seem to be an issue large enough to break up hope, and that is really what happened.


Donald W. Munro: And the communique?

June 9, 1977
International Economic Conference


Allan Joseph MacEachen: When it is available in both official languages, I think it would be a good idea to have the communique appended to Hansard, and I would like one or two other documents appended at the same time, possibly the Canadian statement and the Canadian conclusion.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not know if the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) is now in a position to put forward the documents which have been suggested or whether we ought to see the documents first to determine whether it is feasible to append them to Hansard. If it works out that it is feasible to append them, perhaps permission could be sought tomorrow.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to warmly congratulate the minister-


Steve Eugene Paproski: We have already done that.


George Albert Proud: I am sure the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski) would not object if I, as chairman of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, add my congratulations to the minister for his leadership. He is also to be congratulated for his great patience because this international conference demanded it. I do not share the defeatism of those who believe that this conference was not a success. To be able to have 19 developing countries sitting with eight countries-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to remind the hon. member that the provisions under which we are operating provide the opportunity for the minister to make a statement and members to ask questions. It is therefore open to the hon. member to ask questions and that is all.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, I would refer the minister to the report on the debt problems of developing countries recently submitted by the subcommittee on International Development, which I have the honour to chair. The minister's statement showed clearly that he shared the subcommittee's assessment of the importance of the debt issue and of the need for concrete action in this area at CIEC. Canada's welcome announcement that it would write off the $254 million of debt owed by the least developed countries was in accord with one of the subcommittee's recommendations-in fact, as a unilateral action, this bold Canadian initiative went even further than suggested by the subcommittee.
In light of this, Mr. Speaker, was the minister able to persuade some of the other industrialized countries at CIEC to re-examine the debt problems of these countries in the near future-to, perhaps, consider a write-off, or the postponement of payments on debt related to aid, or other measures suggested by the subcommittee?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I know that the Canadian position on the debt was well received by the developing countries. In fact in the final commentary following the presentation by the industrialized countries, the co-chairman of the conference, Dr. Perez Guerrero singled out Canada for special

reference in the field of the debt and in the field of agriculture. We took this decision as Canadians but we knew the enormous difficulty that other countries might have which have greater volume of debt, to take similar action.
There are still some constructive proposals on the table and the debt problem will be considered in the near future. I think there is some hope that workable arrangements can be achieved through the proposals that have been put forward by the community and the United States. My reference to the Venezuelan co-chairman of the conference leads me to express my appreciation for his work and my admiration for his great dedication and flexibility throughout the whole conference.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Marchand for Mr. Chretien that Bill C-23, an act to facilitate conversion to the metric system of measurement be read the third time and do pass.
Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: Mr. Speaker, when we adjourned for lunch I had just begun my remarks. I pointed out for the benefit of my colleagues that I had been unable to participate in any part of the second reading debate or the committee proceedings on Bill C-23 which deals with the metric changeover in the grains system in Canada. I pointed out also that the considerable delay since the time of first reading has been beneficial. It allowed the groundswell of opinion from grain farmers in western Canada where most of the interest is, to get back to parliament.
It has also been a delayed reaction, as through second reading debate and at committee there was very little if any response or comment from the grain farming public. It now seems clear that grain farmers in particular and farmers in general resent the manner in which this metric change was introduced. They resent it because it is the first major metric changeover in Canada. They ask why some other sector of society was not affected first and that is a valid question. They resent it because they feel they were not consulted about it first of all and especially not by their own leaders. Finally, they resent it because they feel their own farm leaders moved as fast as they did on the assumption of grassroots support which simply was not there.
June 9, 1977

Members of this House may recall the annual meeting of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture which was held last winter in Ottawa at the same time as second reading of this bill was being debated. There were numerous delegates from Saskatchewan and Alberta at that very large convention. Those delegates were critical of Bill C-23 and were asking why there was such a rush and why representatives of the agricultural industry from western Canada were not consulted on their home ground. A motion before the convention that would have brought the issue to a vote was tabled without debate and the issue was not resolved at that convention. Of course it may not be resolved by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture until their next convention, probably next February. The executive of the federation obviously were not prepared to see a vote go against their previous stand in support of what I call a premature bill.
I should like to refer to some correspondence I have received and to quote from four letters that are typical of the response to this metric conversion bill.
The first letter dated February 1, 1977 from Bow Island, Alberta reads as follows:
Dear Mr. Hargrave:
With the announcement today that the metric measure for grain has been delayed I wish to register with you my resentment for the manner in which the Canadian people are being expected to accept this metric malarky. I feel as well as all the people I can talk to, that we do not need the metric system.
As much as we have been brainwashed to believe that the U.S. will follow our footsteps I have read articles on this conversion in several major U.S. papers and the consensus is that the conversion to the metric system there will never pass Congress.
This country was never designed originally for the metric system and barring the fact that the people of Canada will have to pay millions of dollars I do not believe it is necessary to have the system to compete in world trade.
In the issue of the Western Producer of December 2 the editorial states that Britain has not passed their metric bill and has been kicking this around since 1965.
Please consider my opinions and that of most or all of my neighbours.
I quote another letter from Acadia Valley, Alberta, dated March 29, 1977. It reads in part:
The main reason for my letter however is in regard to the metric system. In this democratic country there are always hearings into pipeline building, railway abandonment, etc., etc., so I would like to know ... why the metric system has been forced upon the people of this land. In discussions with my neighbours not one has been in favour of the metric system and no one was ever asked if they wanted it or not. The elevators have already changed their scales and tickets, and yet this has not yet become law. 1 would like to suggest that you discuss this with the people of your area, they are entitled to express their opinions on this matter, and 1 am sure you are in favour of people voicing their opinions.
I quote from another letter written by a resident of Foremost, Alberta, on March 22 this year:
I am writing to you to express my feeling in regard to the proposed legislation by the members of national government, and Us supporters in the House. We learn through our Canadian news media that we are to have the so-called metric system imposed in our way of life by our most' faithful members of our government.
I wish to express my own personal opinion in regard to the proposed changes which will greatly affect all our daily problems. Firstly our economic angles, and secondly our ability to cope with this new measure regardless of how simple it is made to appear. I am a farmer and have been educated to our old and reliable
Metric System
system of farm mathematics, and never found this method in error. I am confident that I can speak for a great many other people in this matter who are all severely affected by this proposed change.
One does not have to study this new proposal very far to realize what a cost it will be to our economy as farmers, also the gradual cost effect to our equipment with which we have established our operations.
1 would suggest that all our opposition members in the House oppose this measure and forestall this wild dream of simplicity until the next election, and then bring this matter before the people in a special plebiscite ballot and await the outcome. Let the majority decide whether Canada wants this change.
I hope you will give this matter your utmost consideration in your influence in government matters and consider us ignorant farmers who need your support.
I quote one more letter written by a farm leader of Bow Island, Alberta, who is held in exceptionally high regard by his community. The letter, dated February 23, reads in part:
An additional comment that I would like to make is with regard to the metric conversion in Canada. I realize that objections should have been voiced long ago, but I was unaware that parliamentary approval had not yet been achieved. 1 can see no valid reason why Canada should change to the metric system. The excuse that we must go metric because of our dependence on foreign markets is hogwash. In this computerized world that presents no problem whatsoever. In spite of what proponents of the metric system say, there will be nothing but confusion for many people, and many will never accept the system. It is interesting to note that Britain and Denmark have never fully changed to the metric system, and it would appear that they probably never will. Our whole land area is surveyed on the Imperial system and obviously cannot be resurveyed under the metric system and maintain the same rural road network, etc.
It just doesn't make sense to change a logical, evenly laid-out land mass to a factional system. It is easily conceivable, too, that a number of "entrepreneurs" will victimize a great many consumers who are not familiar with a new system of weights, volumes and measurements. Much more could be said in defence of the Imperial system. Suffice it to say I am certainly not in favour of the metric conversion. Change, merely for the sake of change is foolish. I can see no benefit whatsoever to the average Canadian in a metric conversion, and after all is it not the average Canadian we are most concerned about?
I point out that the letter referred to "our computerized world" and suggested it was not difficult to convert from the Imperial to the metric system. That point is valid. It is well known that our international grain trade for many years has been conducted in metric units; therefore, the comment concerning "our computerized world" is valid indeed.
I raise one particular item of concern. I learned of this in personal conversations with farmers, especially those who own their own land, which includes most of them. They are deeply concerned about the implications of the metric changeover for our land measurement or survey system in western Canada. I do not know the official plans in this respect, but I say that if any exist, western farm owners are not aware of them. Most farmers are of the opinion that our lands will be resurveyed, if not after passage of the appropriate legislation at least after land is sold and before a new land title is issued, in metric measurement units. This should never happen. Consider all the implications of undertaking a physical resurvey of land. 1 repeat, it should never happen. I may not be a dominion land surveyor-I think that is the official title-but I happen to be a professional engineer and know something of our western Canadian third land survey system.
I know from practical experience how to locate section and township monuments and road allowance requirements. I know how to "jiggle in" a surveyor's transit or theodolite over an official government land survey benchmark monument. I know

June 9, 1977
Metric System
all about the projections of straight lines, correction lines by survey instruments and surveyors' chains for calculating distance and area. I know the history of the projection of the fourth reference meridian, which was a separate true north meridian running north from the American border for 720 miles, established in 1896. Later, this line became the boundary between Alberta and Saskatchewan.
I know this history because the surveyed meridian went right through the ranch on which I still live; it went through it some ten years after that ranch was established. I am certain no such surveys are anticipated, but that is my personal opinion. If they are, farmers should be so notified. If not, they should still be informed. Will land titles be changed to kilometres, metres and hectares? If so, when? Will it be after new legislation becomes law, after the sale of land and before transfer of title, or will there be no change at all? We should be told. All landowners, especially western farm landowners, want to know these answers now. If this information is now available, farmers are not aware of it. That is because of the information put out about this bill. I am fully aware of the fact that land is the responsibility of our provincial governments, including land titles, assignments and taxation. However, I point out that the first western survey was the responsibility of the federal government.
I draw to the attention of hon. members on both sides of the House the remarks of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) before lunch with regard to the question of legality of land ownership, the legislation which supports that type of ownership of land and the basis on which it is done in western Canada. I received a message by correspondence and by personal communication from farmers in the west with whom I discussed this question. I might point out that I received no comments from my city friends or academic friends. The message is that if a metric change is to be made, let it be made after the grain is delivered to the country elevator. That means the continued use of miles, acres, bushels and pounds. That message clearly questions the need for any change to any portion of the metric system unless and until the United States is ready to make a similar change at the same time. It has been suggested that after the withdrawal of the first effective date for this metric bill, the new date will be the end of the crop year, or July 31, 1977. If this is so, the minister responsible for small business should say so now, if possible.
I want to make some brief comments on a front page story in the May 26 edition of the Western Producer dealing with the metric grain issue. This has been mentioned by some of my colleagues but I think it important to again draw attention to it. The article reported on a recent meeting of the Canadian Grain Commission Metric Conversion Committee in Winnipeg. The chairman, Earl Baxter, indicated that his committee was a little bitter about the confusion respecting the progress of this bill through parliament. The article points out that the grain industry has already spent $300,000 in anticipation of metric grain conversion; that it is highly unlikely the

changeover can take place before August, and the next likely date is February, 1978.
Mr. Baxter blamed both the government and the opposition for these problems. He speculated that with a federal election next year-that is the reference in the article-he had doubts about that 1978 date. I have considerable sympathy for Mr. Baxter and his metric grain conversion committee. I am sure he followed very faithfully the terms of reference assigned to his committee. The explanation for his bitterness is obvious. Some groups in very high places in both farm organizations and governments forgot to communicate with the largest sector of our society directly concerned with the consequences of this proposed legislation, namely, the farmers.
In the meantime, I am certain that my grain farming constituents will want me firmly to support the third reading amendment introduced by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain. It makes the reasonable suggestion that the bill be returned to committee to further assess the somewhat delayed but very genuine views of the people who will be directly affected by this legislation. Let us never forget that. It is not we in this House who will be directly affected, but the grain producers.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in the debate on third reading of this very controversial bill. I support the amendment of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) that the bill be returned to committee for further study of certain very limited areas.
Never was more blatant political power used than in the introduction of this bill. It appears as though the metric committee only contacted one or two large civil service-oriented groups such as the Wheat Board and suggested that metric conversion be introduced. The grain trade did not see anything particularly wrong, because the metric system had been used in the selling of grain for decades. It is probably an ideal means of selling grain because of the large volumes involved. However, they did not realize the effect it would have on the 200,000 permit holders.
The grain trade fell over itself trying to do what it had been told by the government, not realizing that it had a choice. The various grain people and companies which promote grain sales and act with regard to quality control did not realize the widespread resentment toward this legislation. Only bilingualism and gun control has created more animosity in western Canada at the rural level than the introduction of the metric system. While this is no disadvantage to the grain trade, it certainly is to the person on the farm.
It has not been proven that changing to the metric system will increase production on the farm. In fact, for many years it will have exactly the opposite effect. It will increase the possibility of error such as using too much herbicide or weed killer, and too little fertilizer. This is because farmers are accustomed to using bushels, acres, pounds and gallons.
June 9, 1977

North America has a common machinery market. All our seed drills, all our herbicide applicators are, naturally, based on the very large American market to the south. The manufacturers will not be using hectares, litres or kilograms until a changeover takes place in America, and this will perhaps take many years, particularly in the field of agriculture. The introduction of the metric system in the United States will, I understand, be largely voluntary. In other words, the system will have to prove itself to be the best before it is widely used.
The Canadian farmer is not averse to new ideas. Indications are that agriculture in general, and grain farming in particular, are among the most scientifically managed industries and certainly among the most productive industries. Farmers resent this change to the metric system because they feel it will be a barrier to their ability to produce. It is significant that in Britain, a much smaller country and one in which the introduction of the metric system will be met with considerably more acceptance than in Canada because of its dependence upon foreign markets for manufactured goods, they intend to keep the mile, the inch, the pound and the gallon. If those measurements were retained in Canada, it would certainly help western farmers through the transition period.
I would point out that the metric system is merely another means of measuring. It is certainly convenient in a computer age, but the metric measurements are often incomprehensible to people accustomed to working with their hands. For example, everyone knows that a bushel basket represents a certain volume. The farmer does not know how much a kilogram or a litre represents. A tonne is too large for him to visualize easily, but a bushel represents a familiar volume; he can look at a bag and form an immediate judgment of what it contains. But a tonne of grain represents anything from 38 bushels of wheat to 50 or so bushels or another grain such as oats. Metric is not a good system of measurement for those who work with their hands on a farm.
Moreover, the metric system is confusing in itself. This is shown by a letter from the deputy minister of agriculture in Manitoba to Mr. Baxter, chairman of the metric committee of the Canadian Grain Commission. This is what the deputy minister had to say:
I understand that the Canada Grains Council Metric Committee has made a tentative decision to adopt the kg/hl as the unit for measuring grain densities. Since Canada, along with most of the other countries in the world is adopting the SI metric system it is clear that we should be using SI units in our grains industry. The hectolitre is not an SI unit and should not be used. The official Metric Practice Guide which is a national standard of Canada gives the kg/m3 as the correct unit for density (see pages 11, 15, and 25). The introduction of another density unit would only add confusion and extra calculations to the designation of grain densities.
I also understand that your committee is proposing to give grain storage volumes in metric tonnes equivalent of wheat. The arguments against the hectolitre also apply to this unit. The unit you are proposing is, in fact, 1.34m3, and the only way to determine the volume of a bin in metric tonnes equivalent of wheat is to measure it in m3 and divide the result by 1.34. This is obviously an unnecessary calculation, and results in a long, confusing unit. To state the volume simply in m3 is according to approved SI practice, and given as the national standard of Canada. To determine the amount of grain in a storage, with the density given in kg/m3 and the volume in m3, one simple multiplication
Metric System
is required. To determine the amount of grain in a storage, with the density given in kg/hl and the volume in metric tonnes equivalent of wheat, many complex calculations are required, as well as knowledge of the appropriate conversion factors. The logic in selecting the approved SI units is clear.
This shows there is division of opinion among the experts as to how this issue should be used. If there is division among experts, how can we expect the farmer to understand the significance of these distinctions? The letter continues:
I also understand that the Canadian Wheat Board is proposing to use metric tonnes per acre as the unit for grain yield. Any combinations of metric and Imperial units are totally unacceptable and I trust that you will use your influence to have the acres replaced by hectares. All of our department publications since January, 1974, have been giving yields and chemical application rates in tonnes or kilograms per hectare and we will continue to do so.
That was from the deputy minister of agriculture in Manitoba. It shows that the Manitoba government is behind this move and agrees to the introduction of metric. But it has not been accepted wholeheartedly by the western farmer. No one complains about the grain trade using the metric system once the grain is in the elevator. But it seems foolish and useless to introduce the system at a time when the railways have indicated that it will be many years, five at least, before they themselves go metric. In other words, even if grain is brought to them in metric tonnes, this will be changed when it is loaded into the boxcars. Then when it is unloaded at the terminals the contents will be translated again into metric terms. So there seems no reason for introducing the change at this time, particularly since other parts of the North American continent, of which the great plains are a part, will continue to use the Imperial system for some years to come.
In his press release of February 1, 1977, the minister undertook to move gradually. He said:
While 1 believe the proposed legislative changes should be implemented as quickly as possible, I also want to ensure that producer interests are not prejudiced and that farmers are not subjected to an unreasonable burden.
He should be as good as his word. What does he propose to do about this unreasonable burden of which he speaks? The minister has not told us. He said he will not have certain aspects of the bill proclaimed until some time in the future. This is not good enough. We want to know what he intends to do, and see it in writing in the legislation. The bill has had a rough ride in rural areas. They feel let down and put upon by the bureaucracy. They feel let down by their own farm organizations which have not, apparently, felt the weight of their members' opinions but are more interested in complying with what they regard as a fait accompli. They were told that they would save a little money; but in the end, of course, the farmer always has to pay because the expense of handling grain is eventually reflected in the price the farmer receives. Therefore, his wishes should be paramount and every effort should be made to accommodate him.
This legislation is being greeted with a tremendous amount of unhappiness on the part of the farmers. I hope the House will see fit to return the legislation to committee so the minister can tell us exactly what he intends to do to relieve the burden on the farmers.

June 9, 1977
Metric System


Mr. Peter P. Masniuk (Portage):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate on Bill C-23, an act to facilitate conversion to the metric system in Canada. The debate on this bill during second reading was very extensive, and the bill has had a very interesting history since it left this House following second reading. We are now aware that it has been the subject of some very active cabinet discussions as well. At any rate, the government has now decided that agricultural measurements will not be converted to metric right away.
A few months ago metric conversion was a pressing necessity, of top priority, but today we are told that metric conversion in agriculture can wait a little longer and that the acre and the bushel will be with us for a while yet. Of course, what this amounts to is an admission by this government of something we have been telling them constantly since this bill was first introduced-that the Canadian farmer is totally opposed to metric conversion. With an election only a year or less away, what was of top priority yesterday has become politically inexpedient today. At the present time, Liberals have become an endangered species on the prairies, and just before an election is certainly the wrong time to do something which has aroused so much antagonism and anger among the prairie farmers as has metric conversion.
Canada is a nation that lives by trade, and she must be in step with the rest of her trading partners if she is to survive and prosper in an interdependent world. I truly think that the metric system for Canada is inevitable and, in the long run, even desirable. But most Canadians, if my mail is any indication, are not in favour of the metric system and the Canadian farmer-the western farmer certainly-is actively opposed to it. In these circumstances, metrication just cannot be imposed on the country in the way proposed by Bill C-23. Canadians must first be accustomed to it on a gradual basis over a period of time.
An entirely new system of measurement is, after all, a major change and requires major adjustment, adjustment which is neither easy nor painless. Our position, then, should be to try to make the best adjustment we can. This sensible and reasonable approach has been the position taken by our party right from the beginning. These latest developments indicate that perhaps the government has listened to some of the things we said during second reading, Mr. Speaker.
Bill C-23 is described as "an act to facilitate conversion to the metric system". But despite this title it does nothing to facilitate our conversion to the metric system. Instead, it imposes this system on the nation in the most arbitrary and dictatorial manner imaginable; in a way which can only produce the maximum confusion, bitterness and disruption. It was the purpose of the amendments proposed by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) and the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) to put some truth into the title of Bill C-23 and to really facilitate conversion to the metric system and make that conversion less painful.
The amendments of my colieague from Moose Jaw would have done this by providing for a dual system, Imperial and

metric, in agriculture. The intent of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain was to facilitate the conversion of Canadian consumers to the new system by providing for a three-year transition period using both systems, during which period the metric system would be phased in while the Imperial system was phased out. We think that these amendments were entirely reasonable and practical, Mr. Speaker.
Bill C-23 as presently framed is really one of the most cold, heartless, humanless pieces of legislation which I have ever seen. It is not legislation at all; it is a bureaucratic edict which says, in effect, "In order to comply with certain requirements," etc., etc. -the language of the bureaucrats- "henceforth things shall be done thus and so". One of my constituents told me that he thought the metric system must have been invented by Ottawa bureaucrats, and while we know that that is not true, it certainly is tailor-made for them.
In the immigration bill we saw a bit of philosophy and rationale for the legislation; but in this bill, which legislates a complete change, conversion to a totally new system of measurement, where such a rationale really is necessary and important and would have been welcome there is no humanness at all. We are, after all, doing more than just changing a system of measurement; we are trying to effect a change in people as well.
This government has just not faced up to the tremendous problems which metric conversion is going to cause, and the horrendous human inequities which it will create. I am not suggesting that we stop conversion. That is not realistic. We cannot turn the clock back and we cannot stop it, either. But to continue with the clock analogy, Mr. Speaker, metric conversion involves more than just turning our measurement clocks to another system, as we do in the spring when we switch to daylight saving time. That is all this bill does; it just sets Canada's measurements on another system and says, "Learn to swim in it in a hurry, or sink".
The same "You're on your own" principle is the one which the government has adopted regarding the cost of conversion, Mr. Speaker. It is to be borne individually by each sector- business, labour, manufacturing, agriculture. Of course, it is not reasonable to expect government to bear the major cost of conversion, but the present approach, the rigid imposition of the metric system on every sector, is not the right way to bring about the change. We would not be going metric at all if there were not at least some consensus among us that it will be in our best interests over the long run-and I believe that it will. But I am troubled by the suggestion I have heard, that the original pressure and the major impetus for metric conversion came from the big, multinationals because a completely metric world is in their interests. If this is so, then the result will be that the groups which metrication will most serve-the very big companies, the multinationals-will be the ones who can most afford the cost of conversion, and the smaller national and local industries which will realize the least benefit from metrication are the ones who can least afford it.

The unorganized, little guy who is not part of any group- the farmer and the consumer-will not realize any benefits from the conversion and, in fact, will be actively hurt by it. This does seem like a Canadianized version of that familiar old American theme, "What's good for General Motors is good for the U.S.A.", inasmuch as an endeavour that we have embarked upon because it is supposed to be in our national interest will most serve those who have the least concern for any strictly national Canadian interest.
It is impossible for us to calculate just how much metric conversion is going to cost, Mr. Speaker, because there are no reliable cost estimates available from any source, that 1 am aware of. The experiences of other countries are not of much help, either, except perhaps in a somewhat negative way. It seems that those countries which converted the fastest, Australia and South Africa, suffered the least expense; whereas in Britain, where the conversion process has been long and delayed, and is still going on, costs have been very great. Of course, the costs in social and human terms of a very fast, disruptive conversion for which this country's people are unprepared would surely be high and must be taken into account with the dollars and cents' expense. The costs of conversion will be different in each industry, of course. It might not be that expensive in the food industry because much of the packaging is of a disposable, non-durable nature. Paper packages, cardboard cartons and so-called "soft" conversion- that is, dual labelling-with metric equivalents marked on Imperial measurement cartons is now almost complete.
One of our amendments which was defeated, would have provided for the continuation of dual labelling when "hard" conversion, the switch to metric-sized containers, takes place. We feel that having the Imperial equivalents marked on metric containers would have protected Canadian consumers against the commercial rip-offs which will most surely take place when manufacturers begin to sell products in containers that look like the old Imperial cartons but are, in fact, smaller and continue to charge the same price. We have dual labelling now with Imperial packages. Why could it not be continued with metric?
The situation regarding metric conversion in durable goods manufacturing is very different from the food industry, but here it depends upon which manufacturing sector one considers. In the Canadian steel industry, for instance, I understand that the view is fairly optimistic. The industry started to convert more than a year and a half ago and feels that the three-year conversion period which they have adopted will give them adequate time to minimize the costs of conversion to metric sizing for steel products. The three-year timeframe was chosen in 1975 because new rates for steel products cannot be introduced until approved by the Canadian Standards Association, which the industry does not expect to come before 1978.
The situation in the automotive industry with regard to metric conversion is a very interesting one. All automobile companies began at least planning for the conversion some
Metric System
time ago-General Motors about three years ago. The problems in the automobile industry will be mostly due to differing paces toward metrication between this country and the United States, since the two industries are so highly integrated. At any rate, this industry should experience the least hardship in absorbing the extra costs of metric conversion.
Unfortunately, the same optimism cannot be felt about the situation of the industrial worker. Regardless of the size of the industry, whether a national or multinational corporation or a local business enterprise down the street, the worker is going to suffer hardship. The additional cash outlay for metric-size tools, which can easily go as high as $3,000, will be an initial financial hardship. The frustration of trying to work in a new system, and the resultant work slowdown and time loss, as well as the inevitable increase in work error and the accompanying production loss, must also be considered.
For self-employed workers at present, the full value of tools can be used as a tax deduction, while salaried employees can deduct 3 per cent of the value, up to a maximum of $250 a year. At the present and very rapidly increasing costs of industrial tools and equipment, this is now inadequate to prevent financial hardship for many salaried workers. Perhaps a special tax exemption might be provided for the Canadian worker to cover this particular expense of metric conversion. In addition, this would demonstrate in a very real and concrete way the government's full support for the metric conversion process and provide the worker with the best of all possible psychological boosts to support metrication-a financial incentive.
When one considers the costs of metric conversion in our society and economy it is, unfortunately, all too easy to foresee a vicious chain developing. The organized workers will, naturally, expect the employer to shoulder the major cost of the conversion and the employer will, in turn, pass on the cost to the consumer. The odd man out will be the unorganized worker, the Canadian farmer and the consumer. Both Canadian labour and consumer legislation may require some revision if we are to prevent these inequalities from developing.
For the Canadian farmer metrication will have few benefits. He uses measurements constantly every day to an extent perhaps greater than in very few other occupations. Now he is expected to stop using an old, familiar system which has been used for generations and start using an entirely new and strange system of measurement with which he has no experience. He must now stop farming acres of land and begin farming hectares. No longer will he harvest bushels of grain. Now it is metric tons, or tonnes. His land will not be measured in miles any more; now it is kilometres. Fuel must now be bought in litres, not gallons; and fertilizer and feed, not in pounds but kilograms.
All these measurements are strange and none has an easy or direct equivalent in the Imperial system. Is it any wonder that the Canadian farmer is so unhappy and so much opposed to the metric system, Mr. Speaker? This is why our party proposed that both the imperial and the metric system be used in agriculture in order to somewhat lessen the confusion and

June 9, 1977
Metric System
disruption which is going to be very great in any case. We suggested that both systems be used for a limited time in order to ease farmers gradually into the use of the metric system. We suggested a three-year conversion period of dual usage, during which farmers would become familiar with the new measurements. This is not an unfair or unreasonable suggestion, but it is certainly very unfair and dictatorial just to impose the metric system on the farmer, to tell him he must use it and that the old system is no longer valid and cannot be used, as this bill does.
However, the government has now decided that it will consult with the farmers before metrication is introduced into farming and then reserve the option of not proclaiming those clauses of this bill which have to do with agriculture. While I suppose that consultation with farmers is some sort of progress for this government, this latest twist of reserving proclamation of certain parts of this legislation is certainly not acceptable to us. Metrication is either introduced, or it is not introduced. There is no way we are going to accept having a metric law on the statute books and have this government hold it over the heads of the western farmer like a club, threatening to bring it in at any time, or alternately suggesting or implying that it may not be brought in at all. This is blackmail and it is completely unacceptable.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Peter Paul Masniuk: For the Canadian consumer, metric conversion will be neither easy nor painless, as I have said. Familiar goods packaged and sold by unfamiliar measurements will almost inevitably create confusion at first. Housewives will not easily adjust to buying milk by the litre, vegetables and meat by the kilo, and dress fabric by the metre. Motorists will not easily become accustomed to travelling kilometres to work, putting litres of gasoline in the tank and kilopascals of pressure in the tires. More serious than this initial confusion, however, will be the great danger metrication will pose for price gouging when the consumer does not know how much he is actually buying.
An example of this confusion occurred a few years ago in Toronto when a service station began selling gasoline by the litre but marked the price on an outdoor sign as a fraction of a gallon. To a casual observer it appeared at first as if the station had discounted the price to an unbelievable extent and was selling gas at less than 15 cents a gallon. There was nothing dishonest going on in this particular instance, as far as I know. It was an example of genuine confusion. But it does demonstrate very well the opportunity that will be afforded to some unscrupulous businesses to raise their prices unnecessarily-
It will happen, as was shown by what occurred in Britain when she converted her currency to the decimal system. Included in the new decimal prices was an unjustified price increase in many cases, but even after the British consumer had begun to understand the decimal money system a little

better and realized that there had been a price increase, the increase stayed. There was no reduction. I am afraid that we are going to experience similar situations here in Canada when metrication is fully under way. This is why the Progressive Conservative party proposed a system of dual labelling of both metric and Imperial measurements, not as a crutch, as some government spokesmen have said, but so that conversion takes place fairly and the consumer is treated fairly and can see that he is being treated fairly.
I feel that the cost of metric conversion will fall heaviest on the Canadian consumer. I do not see how this can be otherwise, since the governing principle regarding metric conversion as far as the government is concerned is to let the costs lie where they fall. Since it is only good business to minimize costs and maximize profits, it seems inevitable that retailers will pass on the increased costs in the form of higher prices to the consumer. There really does not seem to be anything that one can suggest as a solution to this. If we are really committed to metrication for Canada, we will just have to realize in all honesty that it will cost money.
Unjustified price increases, however, price gouging under the guise of conversion costs, might be controlled perhaps to a certain extent by a price surveillance program. The Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs or, more appropriately, the metric commission, would conduct this program. Since the commission already exists and is, we are given to understand, experiencing morale problems arising out of some confusion as to its role and purpose, this might be an ideal function for it. There are many details which would have to be worked out, of course, but I think that this idea should be considered. Canadians might then feel that metrication is doing something for them, rather than to them, as many do now.
I would like to conclude my remarks on this very important subject, Mr. Speaker, by stating, as I did earlier, that I believe in the inevitability of metrication in Canada and, in the long-term, the desirability of it. However, I do not think that we should fool ourselves that this change will not be costly and disruptive. It will be. But I do not take that attitude, either, which I have heard expressed by some, that we should not convert, that we should ignore the rest of the world and content ourselves with the old system. This is a very provincial and insular attitude, not befiting an outward-looking, progressive country like Canada. For us in Canada the metric system may not be absolutely necessary but we, least of any nation which lives by trading, cannot be an island unto ourselves. In an interdependent world it is necessary that Canada be in step with her trading and business partners who are, after all, in today's global village, her neighbours.
I believe that most Canadians are astute enough and responsible enough to recognize this. But we must also be responsible in our approach to metrication and realistic about what it is going to cost both in economic and social terms, because I do not think that the government's approach to bringing the metric system to Canada is either responsible or realistic; and,
June 9, 1977

as I have tried to explain, it will surely create more confusion, frustration and misery than it should.


Mr. Elzinga:: Mr. Speaker, with your consent, since only a few minutes are left to me to participate in the debate, 1 wonder if I could call it five o'clock and begin my speech after the dinner adjournment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House agreed that we call it five o'clock and proceed immediately to private members' business?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to that provided I am assured that the members who are ordinarily expected to be here at five o'clock are here.


Mr. Kaplan:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the House might agree to continue for a few minutes after five o'clock to give the hon. member a chance to conclude his remarks.


Steve Eugene Paproski: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. 1 think it is unfair to allow the hon. member to commence speaking at three minutes to five, because this will break up his speech. It would be simple courtesy on the part of the House to allow him to commence his speech at eight o'clock, particularly on a subject as important as metrication.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: To reassure hon. members, I might say that I have noticed the presence of the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Philbrook) who it has been suggested would be the government speaker. Does the House agree to proceed with private members' business at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions, private bills and public bills.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 believe there has been agreement to allow all motions to stand, at the request of the government, and to commence with the debate on motion No. 46 standing in the name of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 
Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Prairie Farm Assistance Act


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Thomas Gordon Towers: That an order of the House do issue for a copy of the contents of the file or files in the possession of the Department of the Solicitor General and/or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police relating to the investigation concerning Prairie Farm Assistance Act administration.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this debate today came about as a result of the refusal of this government to state or reveal the facts of a serious matter which was first brought to the attention of this House by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) on December 9, 1974. Since then an interesting series of questions, evasive answers, an investigation and cover-ups has taken place. One could compare the actions of this government through more than one government department and the ministers to the behaviour of a child who broke a dish and hid the pieces in the hope the misdemeanour would not be known. In the case of the child, the broken dish was accidental. So far as the government is concerned, the evasion and cover-up were intentional. One can only assume there is guilt. Otherwise, why would the government treat the PFAA issue as one which is too hot to handle? We do not doubt that revelation of the facts would cause embarrassment to certain people and to the ministers who are supposed to be responsible.
[DOT] (noo)
When members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police visited my House of Commons office, at my request, to view the evidence I had in my possession-evidence of wrongdoing on the part of PFAA employees-they decided to check into it further. We had to prod the then solicitor general to order an investigation by that force. The RCMP officers deserve commendation for the thoroughness with which they delved into this affair, particularly in view of the political ramifications and the fact that they were directly responsible to the then solicitor general. These are dedicated men who are interested only in carrying out their duty, regardless of the difficulties they encounter. They did their job well. They were the only ones who could do the job unless the government established an official inquiry by an appointed commission, which up until now the government has refused to appoint.
I mentioned evasiveness and covering up by this government. This unfortunate and unacceptable administration within PFAA also caused three field inspectors to be asked to retire before their terms had terminated, and one individual who refused to retire was fired. He was fired, not because of incompetence or for just cause but because of the questionable policy of this government. That is an excellent example of the just society, which some people thought meant justice. Perhaps it is just in the eyes of the federal cabinet, just because it suits its purpose and hides its political manoeuvring at the expense
6492

June 9, 1977
Prairie Farm Assistance Act
of taxpayers. Why are loyal, competent employees removed from their jobs to protect the guilty, whether at the cabinet level or not? That question has not been answered.
When an individual is hired to work on a specific program or within a department and under that guise that person works for the Liberal party of Canada in a political campaign, at the same time being paid by Canadians' tax dollars, something is drastically wrong. We all know that there could be an error, a wrongdoing or a breaking of rules in anyone's daily job, but the misuse of funds and the underhanded manner in which that person campaigned for the Liberal party while pretending to be doing legitimate work cannot be shrugged off, excused, ignored or pushed under the rug merely because this government thinks it is all right to follow that devious and dishonest policy. Surely someone in this government has a conscience and a feeling of responsibility to those who elected him into office. Surely there is one sincere man of integrity who will stand up and admit that there was wrongdoing, punish the one who was involved, apologize and reveal the facts. That has not been the case. Everyone apparently chose to punish innocent employees to protect the one who sacrificed his name and his integrity to assist the Liberals.
We often hear inside and outside this House that the opposition is wasting time. Why are members of parliament voted into this chamber? Are we not here to protect the electorate against crime, injustice and unnecessary secrecy? If we are not, I am afraid the voters have been given a false impression and, unfortunately, some of them are being represented in a shoddy way. As a last resort I asked for copies of correspondence and other documents related to the PFAA incident, but that attempt was not successful either. The security of this country is not at stake. There is no need for secrecy except to hide the misdemeanours of this government through an employee who is the unfortunate victim. As a member of parliament, and therefore as a protector of those whom I was elected to represent, I have the right to see the RCMP files relating to the PFAA investigation, and I hereby demand to see their contents. I repeat that the security of Canada is not involved. Dishonesty is.
I question whether there not was a violation of the Financial Administration Act, in spite of denials by the former president of the treasury board. How do we know for certain, when we are not permitted to see the evidence? Why the cover-up?
The RCMP decided there was evidence of wrongdoing. The RCMP experienced difficulties, but through their tireless efforts evidence was made available and a preliminary hearing was held on July 17, 1975, when the accused was committed to stand trial on a charge of fraud before a judge and jury. For some reason, the Saskatchewan attorney general's department decided not to proceed further with the matter and a stay of proceedings was entered on December 2, 1975, in the district court judges' criminal court, Regina. How odd, indeed, this should happen when evidence was sufficient to order the accused to stand trial. To add to the unusai, this government chooses to be secretive. If there is nothing to hide, why follow

this procedure which can only add to the suspicion, rather than remove it?
Getting back to waste of time-which is a favourite complaint of this government-yes, there has been waste of time. The RCMP spent considerable time performing its duties. The time of this House was used on numerous occasions in an attempt to have this incident treated in an open-minded way. Even the careers of four competent and decent PFAA employees were wasted by forced early retirement or firing. Most of us do not mind using time when it is necessary to reach a worthy goal-in this case, justice-but we do criticize when that time is spent to no avail due to the arrogance, secretiveness, evasiveness and questionable procedures adopted by the ministers under whose jurisdiction the PFAA administration was placed.
Here is a definite example of the daily problem experienced by parliamentarians under this government when it will not divulge information which should be available to the general public. Taxpayers' dollars were used in a political campaign under the cover of a federal government program. If the government persists in saying the employee in question did not do anything illegal, there is no question in my mind that the incident was politically immoral.
I will close my remarks by saying that this government, by this example of devious cover-up, has left its entire administration and every one of its ministers under a cloud. If we cannot trust the government on this one evident misdemeanour, why or how should we be compelled to trust the federal government at any time on any issue? Anyone can cower, cringe, hide and be evasive. It takes a man to stand up to say he was wrong.


Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) for giving me the opportunity today not only to review this specific case but also to discuss the very important general issue of availability of information. I know that he and other hon. members of the House will understand if I refer directly to my notes sometimes because this is a rather technical subject. The hon. member has asked that an order do issue for a copy of the contents of the file or files in the possession of the Department of the Solicitor General and/or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police relating to the investigation concerning the Prairie Farm Assistance Act administration. Production of the files has been denied for the reasons recorded in answer to the notice of motion on February 23, 1977. The hon. member refused to withdraw his motion and, Mr. Speaker, transferred the matter for debate.
It behooves me, therefore, to elaborate upon the reasons for the denial already stated. Historically, the question of the release of information to hon. members in order to enable them to secure factual information about the operations of government, to carry out their parliamentary duties, has been balanced against the equally important need to protect the security of the state and the rights to privacy of its citizens. When, in the judgment of the government, the need for production is outweighed by the need to protect security or

June 9, 1977
privacy, it becomes the public responsibility of that government to claim an exemption from production.
There has been a long-standing public policy that investigations conducted by police forces and the data gathered during those investigations be treated confidentially. It follows that this policy protects such information from disclosure to the public and to members of the House of Commons. The necessity for the preservation of this confidentiality was aptly described by the prime minister of the day in Great Britain, Lord Palmerston, in 1865 when he commented:
As a general rule no doubt, they-
That is, police reports.
-are not laid before parliament, and for this reason, not because it would be against any order of the House, but because law officers would be more cautious in expressing an opinion if they knew it was to be laid before parliament and the public.
This stated reason, and others as cogent, can be rallied in support of a case for exemption from production in this matter. The passage of time and the continuation of the practice of this exemption continues to reinforce the sensibleness of the reasoning of Lord Palmerston. Production would surely jeopardize the orderly conduct of the administration of justice both federally and provincially and would seriously impair the course of future police investigations of this nature.
Inquiries by the police of the nature in question necessarily involve the acquisition of information from a large number of individuals. Candidness is encouraged, and protection of the interviewee is often considered. In this process of interview and meticulous recording, half-truths may be recorded, hearsay acquired and allegations made that may never be substantiated. The careful recording of this information becomes essential to the production of evidence if, upon substantiation and admissibility as evidence, it will lead to a formal public charge. It is obvious that those matters which cannot be substantiated but were necessarily recorded in the investigative process must be withheld from publication. Yet these matters may appear in a police report side by side. Confidentiality is preserved if necessary between the Crown and its informants in order to save the latter from those who may become accused. Only information that is relevant, admissible and safe to publish will be brought forward at a preliminary hearing of the charges or trial. To do otherwise could cause irreparable damage to the reputation of honest citizens and discourage them and many others from co-operating with future investigations of criminal activities.
The production of police reports in the manner requested would inevitably lead to the laundering of police reports by investigators in an honest and therefore necessary attempt by police to protect their sources of information from exposure. The essential need for a full and complete exchange of information between the police and the Crown would be irreparably damaged as a result. Potential charges could be missed and the ability of the Crown or police to bring charges forward becomes crippled in the process.
Prairie Farm Assistance Act
In projecting these inherent difficulties the government has directed a claim for exemptions to be made in relation to reports and other documents the release of which would be detrimental to the security of the state. In 1969, the commissioners of the Royal Commission on Security addressed this issue as follows:
The duty of the state to protect... its information from unauthorized disclosure ... is indisputable; what are matters for dispute are the procedures established by the state to meet this responsibility in an area which can touch closely upon the fundamental freedoms of the individual.
The duty here was emphatically exercised by declining to produce the documents requested. The importance of this particular case pales in the wake of the fundamental duty of the government to protect the public interest by supporting the condidentiality of police informants, other than those that must necessarily give evidence in support of the case for the Crown.
It is the responsibility and duty of the attorney general in a province to prosecute charges under the provisions of the Criminal Code. The evidence given in support of a charge is thereby published and a transcript of that evidence is available to all and is a matter of public record. Anything beyond this which is made available to the public is dispersed entirely at the discretion of the attorney general of that province, in his capacity as the chief law enforcement officer with the responsibility of the administration of justice within that province. It can be readily appreciated therefore, that any material which may be in the possession of the Department of the Solicitor General and/or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police should not be released by order of this House. To do so would be to subvert the authority and public duty ensconced in that attorney general.
In the particular case in question, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police conducted an investigation into alleged misuse of funds under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act in Saskatchewan. As a result of this investigation, a criminal charge of fraud under section 338(1) of the Criminal Code, was laid against an individual. We are all aware that such a charge is clearly the responsibility of the attorney general of Saskatchewan, and that as such the federal government has no right to force any further information to be made public regarding this case. The transcript of the preliminary hearing is available upon request and is a matter of public record.
The balancing of the basic rights of individuals vis-a-vis the interests of the state must be handled with delicacy. This is invariably difficult. But when the revelation of information undermines the rights of individuals to confidentiality in their capacities as witnesses, or when release of information can inevitably harm individuals without any apparent benefit accruing to the state or anyone else, the choice becomes obvious.
This House cannot arbitrarily usurp the power vested in the attorney general of Saskatchewan or any other province without seriously damaging its relationship with the provincial governments, in addition to destroying its relationship with the police forces in Canada and elsewhere. If investigators feel
80018-9Vt

June 9, 1977
Prairie Farm Assistance Act
that any information they accumulate can be, at any moment, made public, then efforts at investigations into, for example, organized crime, will be seriously hampered. The confidentiality of contacts in such a case is vital to the ability of enforcement agencies to monitor situations and obtain information. We depend on co-operation among police forces, as well as public co-operation with the police for the effective administration of justice and law enforcement. If private information, given in confidence, can be made public at will, public confidence and the public's co-operation in good faith can only be lost and channels of communication blocked. We must not violate the faith of the public in such a manner.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to the extent to which I have come to know the police force in my hometown of Oakville, in the riding of Halton. Working with them I gained a great deal of respect for them and came to realize what some of their problems and concerns are in terms of dealing with organized crime and using information effectively-and that means confidentially. I realize their feelings about such matters as the peace and security legislation, Bill C-51, that is on its way through the House and, in particular, the wiretapping aspects of that bill.
I have known these policemen since we were all very young, and I know them to be people of great integrity, sensitivity and discretion, yet in this particular case they plead very strongly to have representations made, through their member of parliament, for example, in order to ensure that they have enough power to work with. Wiretapping or electronic surveillance would help them cope with new, powerful and sophisticated areas of organized crime and would help them to protect the Canadian people under their responsibility. I see a parallel here and that is why I find the debate today so interesting. The cases are analogous and I have no hesitation in pleading for some reasonable and sensible restriction of the availability of information so that our law enforcement agencies can do their job properly on our behalf.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and once again I should like to thank the hon. member for Red Deer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, this motion for the production of papers has been described by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Philbrook) as a technical matter. He gave an explanation that would be suitable for a newly graduated lawyer.


Frank A. Philbrook: That's not bad for a doctor.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think lawyers and the medical profession have learned that the best business is gobbledygook. To bring before this House all the traditions of parliamentary procedure as an excuse for not responding to the motion of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) is an act that demands plain speaking. I want to put it to the hon. member for Halton that he should listen to the facts and decide in this always grey area whether the

purely technical answer he gave to a technical problem is not a cover-up for a very evil-smelling operation.
Here are the facts, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Lee:: Yes, let's hear the facts first.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I have before me a document the contents of which I shall read into the record. The hon. member for Red Deer seeks information. In this case we know what we want and know what is in the documents. That is not the point. The document in front of me comes from the court in Saskatchewan. Let me give some background to the document.
During the 1974 election campaign, Liberal supporters, employed by a government agency, the Prairie Farm Assistance Act agency, or PFAA, engaged in certain political activities in the hope of electing to parliament Liberal members in the three western provinces. I knew what was going on and asked colleagues in this House and one member of the NDP to watch what was happening. Sure enough, those Liberal campaign workers made a mistake. Mr. Speaker, they were not doing these things for the love of the Liberal party. They were doing it to make money. What was the source of the money? It was not the taxpayers of Canada but a fund belonging to farmers. It was accumulated over the years when a 1 per cent fee was charged on farm sales to elevators.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Somebody was engaged in a little
hanky-panky.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: This $11 million was the source of the money these people were to get. They were to steal from that fund. The day after the election, several of them-and we have evidence concerning five-asked their supervisor to pay their expenses. The supervisors refused, because they had been sent a letter, as had these individuals, saying there was to be no political activity of any kind in the period immediately before the election. But these men ignored the directive in that letter and were observed not to follow its directions. When the supervisors refused to pay their expenses, the next day after the election they told them, or someone in that office, they were going to phone a certain man in Regina appointed by this government and now sitting in front of you as a Privy Councillor to Her Majesty. When the telephone call was made, this man said, "Ignore that supervisor. Send me your expense forms. I know they are fictitious and against orders, but I will sign them and you will be paid". And they were paid.
If you consult the records of this House, you will find that I, to some extent, and the hon. member for Red Deer to a greater extent pushed hard to draw this matter to the Auditor General's attention. The Auditor General reacted immediately. His staff were in there, broke in and took photographs of the particular documents. The hon. member for Red Deer and others exerted pressure for this matter to be drawn to the attention of the RCMP fraud squad. The hon. member acted
June 9, 1977

perfectly honourably and perfectly legally. He said the citizens of this country should be protected against wrongdoing on the part of certain persons at election time. He protested against using the money of farmers which should be held in trust to pay for the improper activitiesof those political wardheelers.
The hon. member for Red Deer acted honourably and the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Hamilton) acted honourably. All of us, as politicians, acting on principles of British equity and justice, kept our mouths shut. Why? The matter was before the Auditor General and the fraud squad of the RCMP and we trusted our national police force to do the proper thing. They tried hard and succeeded partially. Only five substantive bits of evidence were collected. Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to get a man accused of criminal fraud to convict himself. The police did their duty, investigated the charge and turned the matter over to the representatives of the attorney general of Saskatchewan. Several of us have read the transcript of that preliminary hearing before the judge, and even a layman can tell that the particular representative of the Crown attorney's office acting as prosecutor should be sent back to school. The judge listened to the evidence. It was transcribed; the transcript is 68 pages long. The judge said there was enough evidence to commit this man for trial and so recommended.
We acted properly, kept our mouths shut, turned what evidence we had over to the legal people, and supplied more. There is still more to come. The police did their duty, the Auditor General's department did its duty, and the judge did his duty. I ask, why has the trial not proceeded? Why has it not taken place? Rarely, indeed, does a provincial attorney general not proceed with a trial if a judge recommends it should go ahead. The usual reason for not proceeding is that one of the main witnesses dies, flees the country or is bumped off. Our laws afford every protection possible to the criminal. These men are not criminals. They are typical examples of Liberal wardheelers, typical examples of the sort of people who have been active in politics in Saskatchewan in the last 40 years. They are proteges of the Gardiner machine.
When the Liberals were thrown out in Saskatchewan, and then at the federal level, we thought that machine was finished. But, by gosh, when the Liberals were returned federally in 1963, and particularly in 1968, they tried to rebuild it. I have lived under machine politics and do not like it. I remember the days when, as the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) observed our only protection lay in the game laws of the province. As a young man I worked as a hired help on the farm. I wanted to move up in the world and become a municipal secretary. I even thought I might become a teacher after some training. Mr. Speaker, I could not become a municipal secretary. I could not even get into school unless I had the approval of the local Liberal MLA. My freedom to seek the employment I liked was curtailed. Now you know why I and others like me sit on this side of the House.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Do you mean that you would be a Liberal if you were in Ontario?
Prairie Farm Assistance Act


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I have tried to show what happens under machine-type politics. Wherever a machine rears its head, you will find me fighting against it. I do not like it. What we are witnessing here in response to the hon. member's motion is a cover-up, by members on the government side, of what is legitimate information.
I am going to read into the record the charge against just one man. This has the stamp of the Department of the Attorney General in Saskatchewan. The document is dated October 1, 1975. I am not a lawyer so hon. members will pardon me if I just give the big print. The information reads:
On behalf of Her Majesty the Queen
This is the information of Inspector J. Keith DANE of Regina, Saskatchewan, peace officer, hereinafter called the informant.
He had done his duty, he collected his evidence.
The informant says that he has reasonable and probable grounds to believe and does believe that Howard Ernest Buchan of Regina, Saskatchewan between the 1st day of May A.D. 1974 and the 16th day of August A.D. 1974-
Purely by accident, that is the period covering the election.
-at Regina in the Province of Saskatchewan did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means defraud the public in general and the Government of Canada of the sum of three hundred and ninety nine dollars and seventy eight cents ($399.78) by making or causing to be made, false and fictitious travelling expense accounts and work reports for John Kormendy contrary to Section 338(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada.
That was the charge. The judge listened to the evidence of this man. It points to Buchan, an appointee of this government, for no other reason than he was part of the Gardiner machine, trusted to look after the farmers' money under PFAA.
The judge said there should be a trial; the Attorney General said no. He will have to answer for that. I became concerned about it and wrote to him. He replied on July 14, 1976, and I quote:
The decision to enter the Stay of Proceedings was made on the basis of the recommendations of this department's legal staff-
If we have to rely on that, God help this country.
-which were based entirely upon a consideration of evidential and legal matters. 1 am advised that there was not at any time any communication between any federal department or official, and any member of my department with respect to this prosecution.
Why would the Attorney General put in a gratuitous observation like that? I had not asked that question. What was bothering him to offer that proposal? No one from Ottawa approached me about this. It is a purely legal matter. He went on, and this is the key:
It is the duty of the prosecutor, notwithstanding an order of committal for trial, to review the evidence after the preliminary hearing to determine whether or not there is in fact a proper case to place before the trial court. The prosecution's allegations in this case were based entirely upon certain statements made by a Mr. John Kormendy, an accomplice.
1 am not in a position to express an opinion on the quality of this evidence, but in substance the Attorney General turned down this request for a trial by the judge on the ground that the evidence came from one of the partners in the crime. This

June 9, 1977
Prairie Farm Assistance Act
is known as a corroborative evidence concept. It means that if you catch five guys robbing a bank-they are caught with all the cash in their hands-and if you take the matter into court and only one guy gives evidence against the other four, the court will not accept that evidence because there is no corroborative evidence from someone other than an accomplice. You need someone else to corroborate the evidence.
We have the evidence of the cash in the hands. If they cashed those cheques, we want that evidence. We know they did but we would like to see it officially from the government. We know the orders were sent out that they must not work even on their job let alone politically. They disobeyed that. We know the money came from a fund that belonged to the farmers.
We feel that we, as Canadians, have done our duty in the legal course, stymied by this tendency not only of civil servants but of legal civil servants following the well known principle of CYA to cover themselves with paper in this type of letter.
This issue cannot die. We have before parliament a motion on the part of government to repeal the PFAA. In 1975 I asked parliament, and the government acceded, because it took it out, to take out the repeal of the PFAA from this House until this criminal fraud matter was cleared up, and not only the charges of criminal fraud, the documents about which the hon. member is after, meaning types of statements similar to what I read into the record regarding the whole file, but also political fraud. He hinted at it.
We want to find out whether the director sent the letter as ordered by the minister's office to every person, saying that he must not participate in any activity whatsoever, either legitimate or otherwise, before the election. Was that letter sent out?
Second, we would like to talk to the supervisors. Why did they refuse to sign those expense vouchers? Third, we would like to ask the staff, the people in the office in Regina, why it was, when this got into the hands of the police, that just before Christmas all the girls who had worked in that office for years, close to pension, were suddenly dismissed. What was happening in that office that would make them want to dismiss those secretaries who had been there for years? This is not criminal fraud. It is not required in this question.
We would like to ask the minister before we repeal this legislation why they kept a director of PFAA on staff, paid him $25,000 a year, yet locked him out of his own office and did not allow him in there. Why?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired. Is there consent to allow the hon. member to complete his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a serious subject. We would like to ask a whole series of questions. It is not criminal fraud but political fraud. Why were the payments made under the summer fallow

program in 1972 before the election and the farmers then told they had been overpaid and had to pay part of it back?
We would like to ask about any of the special instructions which were sent out-why some people who were overpaid were treated differently from others. And in the 1974 election, when they were overpaid before the election, all the farmers got their money. But after the election was over they were told they had been overpaid and would have to give some back. What were the instructions which allowed that in certain cases they would negotiate, and what were the terms of those negotiations under which they would not have to pay back what they owed the government? This is not criminal fraud. It is up to us as members of parliament to try to get it out of the government when they come before the Committee on Privileges and Elections. But we cannot take the question before the Committee on Privileges and Elections until the matter of the criminal fraud is cleared up.
I know the police are angry at the incompetence of the men in the Attorney General's office in presenting the case. I know the people in the Attorney General's office don't believe the police gave all the evidence they could have given. But I do not think that on a sensitive political matter like this, affecting not only the taxpayers' money but the farmers' money, that any Attorney General, for whatever reason, should have denied justice to the people of Canada.
This man who was charged with criminal fraud should have a chance to be tried by judge and jury. That is why it is important to the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) that we get access to these things because we are dealing with documents that are official-not just information we know about. We have had telephone conversations with the various people involved, and so on.
Our request is a reasonable one and does not affect the question of security of the state. It is not a question affecting the relationship between the law officers of the Crown and the minister. It is a question of getting documents which are similar to the one from which I have just quoted. We have a job to do in Saskatchewan as well, to straighten out this question of legal niceties and technicalities being used as devices to keep justice from being done. If we are to do our job as citizens in Saskatchewan it would be a big help if the government in Ottawa did not deny us what we believe to be a reasonable request, access to the four or five documents which give us the facts of each case so that the people will know it is not an isolated case but part of a wider plan. There may have been others over and above the five, but the documents we want are on the five that are actually tangible cases.
I believe reasonable people would say that there is nothing in these documents beyond the fact that they acted in this case against orders, it was improper, illegal, and they got the money and cashed it. That is all. They stole it. They call it criminal fraud. But we have another job-one we cannot do until we clear up the criminal fraud. If we are to do our duty here and bring the matter before the Committee on Privileges and
June 9, 1977

Elections and call before it not only the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), who acted as an innocent bystander in this whole thing, but the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) who knows the situation well, then we have to face up to the fact that we cannot let die on the Hansard record the question of what happened on that awful day, July 8, 1976.
When I asked the Minister of Agriculture about the burning of the documents, he said, "Well, the police took all they wanted, anything we needed we kept and everything else which was irrelevant or trivial-"insignificant" was his word-was destroyed." I asked him who instructed the burning of these papers. Here is his answer, as reported on page 15157 of Hansard:
The information which was given to me was that no instructions were given to the person in charge who decided that all insignificant documents should be destroyed.
So no instructions were given by the Minister of Agriculture to destroy those documents. But somebody down in the office who had fired all the girls, kept the director out of his office, on his own initiative burned all the documents. I would think that with that type of evidence before us we have to face the fact that we are dealing with a serious political situation in the west. We know the close tie-up between the major newspapers in Saskatchewan and this political machine. And just last week we saw more evidence of it. A minister of the Crown, knowing that all these things are riding forward and will maybe come to light one of these days, suddenly issued a warning to two newspapers: "You publish or distribute that particular document and my lawyers will have words to say to you." And these two docile papers agreed not to distribute the document. But that same warning was not thrust on every other newpaper in Canada-because they are not part of the machine in Saskatchewan.
We are fighting a messy situation out there, Mr. Speaker. We ask the government and parliament to back us in cleaning it up. That is all we are asking. It is a serious matter, and I do not want to see it resting on the conscience of this parliament that we will not face up to it but prefer to follow the technical explanation that the documents cannot be given because to do so would destroy the relationship between the police and the minister. That is not good enough.
I could go on and develop the various arguments 1 have raised in these last minutes. But I think I have made my case as well as I can. We do have some responsibility to our country and to the legal system. Also we have responsibility to see that justice is done, and in this case, justice is not being done because smart lawyers and teachers of lawyers use superficial legal reasons to avoid justice in this country. Whether it be in the province of Saskatchewan or at the federal government level this must be fought, and 1 wish to congratulate the hon. member for Red Deer for having the courage to bring it up.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I know that the time of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain has expired but I wonder if I might be permitted to ask him a question.
Prairie Farm Assistance Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: As an extension of time was permitted the hon. member, I suppose I can take it upon myself to allow a question.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: At the beginning of his remarks, did the hon. member indicate that he already had some or all of the documents whose production he is seeking?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I made it clear in my remarks that we know what is contained in the documents. We were the ones who got the Auditor General and the police moving on this. We know that we do not have the official documents on the basis of which we can speak and say that our record is the authentic one. The only way in which a member of parliament can get the official documents is by putting down a motion for the prodution of papers. We do not have the official documents but, for example, in the case of Saskatchewan they sent us a full transcript of the case. We have something with which to debate. The answer to the hon. member's question, in simple terms, is this: we know what the documents are, and they are no more serious than what we have here. It is not just an isolated case. We know there are other people involved who are not giving evidence and whom we would, naturally, like to attract.
Since some people are doing their duty and giving evidence for the state, others should come forward too to play their part, not by protecting these people with motives which are not proper, but by turning them loose on to the justice system. Let the judges and juries decide whether they are guilty of criminal fraud and not an attorney general nor an ex-minister of justice in a de facto sense interfering with our justice system. Even though the amounts are small, just $300 for a couple of weeks work, the fact is they did that, and had the colossal gall to steal that little bit of money in trust that should go to the farmers.


Arthur John (Art) Lee: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the arguments and allegations put forward by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) and the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton). They were alleging a cover-up and evasion, which is a very serious allegation indeed. I found it rather interesting that they could make this charge in view of the fact that it was the attorney general of Saskatchewan who decided to stay the proceedings. The hon. member pointed out in a letter he referred to from the attorney general of Saskatchewan that the reason why the attorney general stayed the proceedings was that the rationale or basis for the commitment to trial was based on the evidence of an accomplice who was involved in allegations of fraud. Surely that matter is properly within the jurisdiction of the attorney general of Saskatchewan.
What the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain is asking of us I think he should ask of the attorney general of Saskatchewan. He is asking us about cover-up and evasion when it is the attorney general of Saskatchewan who stayed

June 9, 1977
Prairie Farm Assistance Act
the proceedings and who is responsible for the administration of justice in that province. It is a very serious charge and allegation that the hon. member is putting forward.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: It is indeed.


Arthur John (Art) Lee: Mr. Speaker, the motion put before us by the hon. member for Red Deer is one requiring extremely careful consideration. I say that in view of the fact that we are involving ourselves in the matter when, as I have said, it is the attorney general of Saskatchewan who is responsible for the administration of justice in that province. Indeed the motion must be weighed very carefully in terms of an area which has always been highly productive of controversy. I refer, of course, to the area of provincial as opposed to federal jurisdiction.
During the time allotted I shall endeavour to touch upon those particular aspects of the problem to which this motion would seem to relate. These, I believe, lie in the contractual responsibilities of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to provide provincial police services to certain provinces; secondly, in the traditional responsibility of provinces for the administration of criminal justice; and thirdly, in the effective delivery of police services.
Effectually, a paramount aspect of the question to be resolved would seem to be whether or not this House may appropriately order that there be tabled the contents of a file or files which are under the control and subject to the direction of the attorney general of a province. It is granted that the investigation in question was carried out by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in respect of a federal statute, but both the investigation and subsequent judicial proceedings were made under the jurisdiction of the attorney general of the province of Saskatchewan. Under such circumstances we must ask ourselves this critical question: Would the House of Commons be justified in ordering case files clearly under a provincial jurisdiction to be produced here?
As I said, the investigation in this connection was with respect to a federal statute but the alleged offence was criminal in nature and resulted in fact in a charge of fraud being laid under section 338(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada. Responsibility for prosecution was, therefore, clearly that of the attorney general of Saskatchewan, not that of the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox).
Let us for the moment examine the responsibility of the RCMP in such instances. The contract under which police services are provided by the force to a province by virtue of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act reads in fact:
1.	Canada shall, for the purposes of this agreement and subject to the terms herein, provide and maintain provincial police services within the province during the term of this agreement.
2.	The internal management of the Provincial Police Services, including the administration and application of professional police procedures, shall remain under the control of Canada.
From this we see that only the internal management of the services remains under federal control. Obviously, this does not include the operation of the police service and operations
[Mr. Lee.)
include the investigative processes. These processes in turn include investigative files and materials. The maintenance of these files is an administrative matter, but use of the contents of the files, in my view, must be considered as operational.
Examining the federal-provincial contract for police services further, we find that:
1.	The Commanding Officer of the Provincial Police Services shall for the purposes of this agreement act under the direction of the Attorney General in the administration of justice in the province.
2.	Nothing in this agreement shall be interpreted as limiting in any way the powers of the Attorney General, relating to the administration of justice within the province.
By these terms, there can be no doubt that the RCMP in the administration of justice in a contracting province act as agents of the attorney general of that province.
Pertaining to case files and other relevant data, may I quote further from the contracts which are entered into between the two levels of government:
3.	Any information
(a)	in possession of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and
(b)	which affects the administration of justice in the Province
shall be provided to the Attorney General in a manner and form to be agreed upon by the Commanding Officer and the Attorney General.
The services of the RCMP to the contracting provinces have been provided for many years, in Saskatchewan since 1905 in fact, and continue to be provided under these or similar terms. To the best of my knowledge, these terms have heretofore always been scrupulously adhered to by the contracting parties. Would we then, by asking for production of documents rightfully under control of a provincial authority, be contributing to a breach of contract-in the process demeaning, it seems to me, the traditional bond of trust which has historically existed between the force and the provinces it has so faithfully served?
This, in effect, is exactly what the hon. members for Red Deer and Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain are asking. I seriously put to them whether they have considered the full consequences of what they are requesting. I am fully confident that if the hon. members were in full grasp of all the facts, they would not make such a request. We have had excellent relations with the provinces and surely we must continue to ensure that we do not disrupt this state of affairs.
In examining the motion before us, we must be' truly conscious of the irreparable harm that could result from what may well be interpreted in some quarters as encroachment upon a subject which, under section 92 of the British North America Act, has traditionally been exclusive to provincial legislation:
In each province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Matters coming within the Classes of Subject next herein-after enumerated; that is to say,
and referring to our particular concern here today:
-the Administration of Justice in the Province, including the Constitution, Maintenance, and Organization of Provincial Courts, both of Civil and of Criminal Jurisdiction, and including Procedure in Civil Matters in those Courts.
The matter in question was investigated and prosecuted under the jurisdiction of the attorney general of the province of
June 9, 1977

Saskatchewan, a jurisdiction whose sources are found at the very roots of our Constitution. If we accept, as I think we all do, that the administration of justice is a subject of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, then we must accept that only the responsible provincial authorities are empowered to produce material relating to this particular case, and indeed all such cases.
As I indicated when this motion was tabled on February 23, 1977, and I quote from page 3345 of Hansard'.
-the transcript of the preliminary hearing will be made available to the hon. member, upon request, by the office of the deputy attorney general, Regina, Saskatchewan.
The hon. member has a copy of the transcript because he referred to it.
To request that papers under the control and direction of the attorney general of the province of Saskatchewan be produced in this House would, I submit, sorely test, and be highly detrimental to the conduct of relations with the province of Saskatchewan and, because of the unprecedented character of such an action within the area of administration of justice, with all the other provinces that contract for the services of the RCMP.
Federal-provincial respect of jurisdictional boundaries is vital to an effective policing system in Canada. The police battle against crime grows daily more complex and demanding. Its successful prosecution depends upon a wide variety of factors, not the least of which is a clear division of responsibilities and jurisdictions. Accordingly, if we were to accede to the hon. member for Red Deer's motion, I submit we would disrupt the clear lines of jurisdiction. Certainly this is not what we need in this nation. If we are to be successful in combatting crime-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I have to cut in to-


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, may I just interrupt to ask a very important and brief question. Did the hon. member through his department ask the attorney general to produce these documents so that he can supply them to us?


Thomas Gordon Towers: Yes or no.


Arthur John (Art) Lee: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that; I would have to check into that.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Hon. members are aware that we have gone beyond the hour provided for the consideration of private members' business, and if we are to pursue questions or speeches we would need unanimous consent. Therefore, I think the House had better proceed now with the adjournment motion.
Adjournment Debate



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, I asked a question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) on May 26, 1977, which appears in Hansard at page 5964 as follows:
In view of the known dangers of smoking to health, is the minister considering the possibility of controlling tobacco under the Food and Drugs Act?
The minister's answer was: "Not at this time". This answer is most unfortunate when the matter is so serious. I should point out to the members of the House that this same matter was presented before the United States Senate on the same date as I presented it here in the House of Commons.
Over the past 70 years people have become increasingly concerned with the quality of their environment. Techonologi-cal developments have given scientists the means to protect society from once dreaded diseases, and in many cases these maladies are now almost unheard of. One of the reasons for this vast improvement in public health is the discovery and availability of drugs to prevent and cure. However, there is also another component which is often forgotten, and that is the regulation of the purity of food and water.
Perhaps one of the most common defences used to protect our health is the strict standards which our drinking water must measure up to. This same type of protection is also provided to ensure that the food we eat, and the drugs we must take from time to time, will benefit rather than harm us. Similarly, we are exceedingly cautious in the types of chemicals available for general use.
The success of those who administer the statutes and regulations concerning water, food, and chemicals is recognized by everyone. We are constantly made aware by the various media of the concerns of the scientists who are continually examining and evaluating the many new substances which may affect some aspect of our lives. Often we do not fully understand the technicalities involved, but because of the track record of our authorities we accept and respect their warnings.
I would like to turn to a particular warning that has been expressed by health authorities around the world. I refer to the specified danger of inhaling the smoke of tobacco. This danger is, according to those who know, one that is avoidable. However, unlike our water and food, which we also take into our bodies, with a few exceptions the air we breathe is not protected by similar health standards.
It is generally recognized that the use of tobacco products has a long history of social acceptance. Moreover, smoking has become a type of status symbol. We also use smoking to
6500

June 9, 1977
Adjournment Debate
celebrate a happy event-a proud new father passing out cigars-a carton of cigarettes or a pipe for a Christmas present. However, it is now a well-established fact that smoke can be harmful to smokers, and recent studies indicate almost equally as harmful to non-smokers.
A report completed by Dr. Brunneman and Dr. Hoffman, of the Naylor Dana Institute for Disease Prevention of the American Health Foundation in New York, suggests that non-smokers are suffering seriously if they are subjected to smoke-filled spaces. Their report warns that:
. .. during one hour in a smoke-polluted indoor environment, we may inhale air polluted with volatile nitrosamines-a possible cancer inducing agent-in amounts equal to those in the sum of 5 to 30 cigarettes.
A report in the Montreal Gazette on May 31,1977, quoted the scientists' paper noting:
The sidestream smoke of cigarettes and cigars contains at least a ten times higher quantity of volatile nitrosamines than inhaled smoke.
Many Canadians have become increasingly curious as to why their governments, both federal and provincial, have not as yet enacted preventative legislation which could require advertising of tobacco products to include details of the make up of tobacco smoke which could affect smokers and nonsmokers alike.
There is a need for authority to control the classes, quantities and qualities of the chemicals in tobacco sold to the smoker, and consideration should be given to the method by which tobacco products are distributed. Tobacco smoke in crowded places used by governments and places under governments' jurisdiction, such as post offices and other public services, aircraft, trains, buses, and marine vessels, ought to be legally restricted. Without such legislation the public cannot sense or believe that their health authorities have a real interest in the dangers of this product.
The Royal College of Physicians recently reported that:
A cigarette smoker shortens his life span by about 5.5 minutes for each cigarette smoked. Still-births and deaths in the first week of life occur nearly 30 percent more often in the babies of mothers who smoke regularly after the fourth month of pregnancy.
Recently a number of organizations opposed to cigarette smoking tried to force the U.S. food and drug administration to regulate the sale of cigarettes as strictly as the agency plans to regulate saccharin. Two former surgeons-general, Dr. Jesse Steinfield and Dr. Luther Terry, supported the move.
In the June 4 issue of the Toronto Star there were several letters supporting the restriction of tobacco smoke in public places.
Ottawa City Council has recently passed a municipal bylaw which prohibits smoking in banks, service areas of retail outlets, office reception areas, elevators, escalators or stairways, and limits smoking to designated areas in restaurants and hospitals. Taxi drivers may request passengers not to smoke, and similarly passengers may ask the drivers to refrain. Toronto has also passed the same type of restrictions, and I understand that Salmon Arm, British Columbia; Richmond, British Columbia; and Calgary, Alberta, are also considering restrictions on the use of tobacco in public places.

Not too long ago I received a letter from a constituent who wondered why we continue to spend millions of dollars on health care for smoking related diseases when these illnesses can so easily be controlled.
With increased medical findings that indicate tobacco smoke does harm to those who do not smoke; when surgeons-general endorse a plan to restrict the availability of tobacco products; when many Canadian municipalities are presently taking it upon themselves to provide for non-smokers, we cannot stand to one side. A failure to enact legislation to regulate tobacco smoke, a move which is receiving great public support, on inter-provincial aircraft, trains, highway buses, and marine vessels indicates that there is a lack of conviction on our part in the concern we have expressed on this matter.
I know that there is great concern for the person who suffers from tobacco smoke. If a hockey stick manufacturer in Quebec can provide a $500-employee bonus as an incentive to stop smoking, then surely we can provide for the non-smoker who does not wish to breathe tobacco smoke. The best way to do this is to regulate the use of tobacco in public places under federal jurisdiction.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for his interest in the issue of smoking. He himself last year was the proponent of a bill which would have given legal authority for public transporters to regulate smoking aboard their vehicles of transportation. Unfortunately, the opposition delayed the debate so long-


Stanley Howard Knowles: The official opposition.


Marc Lalonde: Yes, the official opposition delayed the debate so long that the bill was not passed. Since then we have been considering the possibility of getting an agreement to have the bill considered and passed quickly in the House by all the parties. I note, however, that contrary to the question raised by the hon. member the other day, this is not something that can be done through the Food and Drug Act; it requires a special piece of legislation.
So far as regulating under the Food and Drug Act is concerned, we have been acting through the means of education and co-operation from industry in the last few years, always with the power to regulate if necessary. But it has been shown, I believe, in one of the steps that has been taken that we can achieve as much by education and by co-operation with the industry. In fact, we can show a natural decrease of 11 per cent among males 15 years and over between 1965 and 1975, declining to 43 per Cent in the later years. We see among adult women that the percentage has remained about the same. In the population between the years 15 to 19 the proportion of smokers among young men has dropped from 36 per cent to 30 per cent between 1970 and 1975, and the 1975 survey confirmed that smoking among young women has levelled off at 27 per cent to 28 per cent.
June 9, 1977

I can also report that the tar and nicotine content in cigarettes has been going down consistently over the last few years, and now there are two cigarettes on the market with tar and nicotine levels as low as 1 and 0.1 milligram respectively. As hon. members know, there has been a discontinuation of radio and television advertising of cigarettes, and there are warnings of tar and nicotine on packages and in printed media advertisements. More recently, manufacturers have been giving particular emphasis to promoting low tar and nicotine cigarettes.
1 am not going to say that I am satisfied with the progress which has been made. Warnings, and tar and nicotine statements are too often difficult to read or even recognize, and there is room for further reductions in tar, nicotine, carbon monoxide and other smoke constituents. I would also like to see less emphasis on promoting higher tar brands. We are involved in very active negotiations with the manufacturers on these and other matters, and I am expecting a report on this subject later this month or early in July.
As I have said, I would prefer to see our further goals achieved as much as possible by negotiation rather than by legislation. Elowever, I will not hesitate to consider legislation, including the use of the Food and Drugs Act, if it appears that satisfactory progress cannot be maintained by voluntary measures.


CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION-BASIS ON WHICH FUNDS DISTRIBUTED TO PROVINCES
Peter Elzinga: Mr. Speaker, on May 30 I put a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) inquiring as to what criteria were used in the disbursement of the capital budget commitment for funding under CMHC. The minister stated that the allotment of funds was made in accordance with programs established under the National Housing Act.
The reason 1 asked that question was that the minister of housing and public works of Alberta has suggested on several occasions that Albertans have been treated less than equitably in past CMHC funding. All one has to do is look at the figures which are available. When we do so, we find that the capital budget commitment for funding under CMHC on a nationwide per capita basis is $82.68. Albertans receive, on an average per capita basis, $56.94. The province of Quebec receives $80 on a per capita basis. Saskatchewan receives $112, and British Columbia receives $86. Judging by these figures Alberta obviously is not getting its fair share.
The Alberta minister wrote a letter to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs indicating that Alberta is not being treated equitably in this regard. He stated that Alberta is a leading province in economic activity, and that there is good reason to believe that the influx of people into that province will not subside in the near future and may in fact accelerate. The Alberta minister stated that he would appreciate the assurance that, irrespective of the Alberta government's increased initia-
Adjournment Debate
tives in the housing field, the federal government would make available to Albertans an equitable share of national government initiatives in housing and in related fields. I have stated that on a national average the disbursement by CMHC is $82.68 and that Alberta's disbursement is $56.94, I find it extremely disappointing that a national program like this is disbursed on an unequal basis.
In the statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) on provincial economic accounts it was indicated that Albertans contributed four times more than any other resident in Canada on a per capita basis. The tab for every Albertan in 1974 was $1,093. British Columbia residents, combined with Yukon and Northwest Territories residents, contributed on a per capita basis $268, and Ontario residents contributed $172. We realize that we have to contribute more because we have a stable, economic climate, no thanks to the federal government. We are deeply disturbed when a national program is extended on an unfair basis nation-wide with Alberta receiving less than its share.
What happened with the Central Mortgage and Housing capital commitment program is happening in many areas. One has only to look at the Department of Supply and Services. Alberta has almost 8 per cent of the population of Canada yet it receives only 4 per cent of the contracts awarded by that department. The same is true of the capital construction program under the Department of Public Works; Alberta receives only about 4 per cent of the total expended under this program.
With the economic activity in Alberta being what it is, we need housing initiatives. I ask the parliamentary secretary to let us know the basis on which the capital budget commitment for funding under CMHC is disbursed to the provinces, what the criteria for programs are under the National Housing Act, and if they are such that some provinces are treated unjustly, then would the department re-evaluate the program so that it is fair to all instead of making second-class citizens of some?


Mr. Walter Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to respond to the question put by the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga).
There are several factors which must be examined and weighed carefully in the process of allocating the CMHC capital budget to the provinces. No single factor can be selected as being the most important determinant of the final allocation.
Amongst the most prominent factors are housing needs and demand. The housing needs of the provinces vary greatly not only on the basis of population size, incomes, the condition of the housing stock, and the level of demand, but also in respect of the need for specific programs which are offered by CMHC.
In capacity and performance the provinces vary greatly in their ability to take up funds which they are allocated. In deciding on the appropriate level of support in each province, past performance in the programs is examined as well as the prospects for the coming year.
8001 8 -lOVi

June 9, 1977
Adjournment Debate
Consultation between federal and provincial housing officials occurs regularly, and provincial housing agencies are formally consulted on their views and plans with respect to funding levels in each program during the budget preparation
process.
As far as the known future activity and federal-provincial agreements is concerned, CMHC, through its regional and local offices, is able to identify in several programs when applications will be submitted for funding. Moreover, some programs operate under agreements between the federal and provincial governments, and these must be taken into account.
In addition to these considerations, CMHC does monitor performance in each province throughout the year and periodically re-examines the allocations in light of provincial intentions and changing market circumstances.
This question stems from remarks made in April by Mr. Yurko, minister of housing and public works in Alberta, in which he suggested that the province did not receive its fair share on a per capita basis of the CMHC allocation. He did acknowledge, however, that Alberta's share had been gradually increased from past years' levels. While it is true that Alberta does receive the lowest per capita share of the capital budget, Mr. Yurko failed to note the high proportion of grants which Alberta receives under the sewage treatment program and which are not reported as part of the capital budget. In 1977, the allocation to Alberta under the sewage treatment program grants is SI5 million, or 24 per cent of the national grant budget for the program.


VETERANS AFFAIRS-INQUIRY WHETHER DISABILITY PENSION WILL BE RESTORED TO 1972 VALUE
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise with the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) the question I put to him on Tuesday, March 1, as reported in Hansard at page 3516. My question concerns the rate of the war disability pension.
As the minister knows, the beginnings of a pension on the basis of disability for veterans who had active service were established in the early 1920's, shortly after World War I. At that time the rate of the 100 per cent disability pension was geared to the wage or salary paid to cleaners in the federal public service. During the years which followed many increases were made in that basis rate, but it got so far out of line with wages paid in the public service that, 50 years later, it was a crying shame. Fortunately, in 1972, 50 years later, this was corrected.
The correction established an even better basis than had been established back in the early 1920's. The rate of a 100 per cent war disability pension was established in relation to the composite wage or the average wage of five selected categories in the public service. The rate of the pension is not precisely the same number of dollars, because the fact that the war disability pension is free of income tax was taken into
[Mr. Smith (Saint-Jean).1
consideration. At any rate, that was the basis on which the rate of the 100 per cent disability pension was established in 1972. It was done after an extensive study of the question had been made by a special tripartite committee.
One of the things the Committee recommended was that once the rate was established on this new basis, it should stay there, that is to say, it should continue to be the average of salaries and wages paid to those five groups in the public service. I was elated with that recommendation and delighted that the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs approved it and recommended it to the House. But when the minister brought in the bill which had been approved by the government-there is a meaning in there which I hope is not lost, because I am sure the minister would like to have done better-the provision was not to keep the rate of the 100 per cent war disability pension tied to the wage and salary scale to which I referred but, instead, simply to increase that 1972 rate on the basis of the rise in the consumer price index. That happened between 1972 and 1977.
What some of us were afraid would happen and predicted has come to pass. The fact is that now there is a gap of nearly $45 a month, or about $540 a year, between the composite of the wages and salaries of the five groups in the public service and the rate of the 100 per cent disability pension. I know this is only four or five years down the road since the new scale was set, but I hope it will not take until the year 2022 to get the rate back to the basis we established earlier. The minister and I may still be here, but we may have some new colleagues around to whom we shall need to tell the whole story.
I know the minister is interested in this topic. He has answered questions on it a number of times, usually to tell us he is reviewing it. The matter was raised at the last meeting of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs by the representatives of the National Council of Veterans Organizations and at that point the minister again said the question was under review. It disappoints me a bit that up to this point all we have been able to get from the minister is the acknowledgement that this question is still under review. I am sure he agrees with me that this cannot go on.
We must not let the same thing happen from 1972 on that happened from the early 1920's on. Let us get the rate of the 100 per cent disability pension for our veterans back where we put it in 1972. I do not like the government forever telling us that it is restraint that stands in the way, because there are a lot of places in government spending where restraint is not practised. That certainly should not be an excuse for not dealing with this important issue.
I am grateful to the minister for being here at this time of the day. I look forward to an answer in which I hope this time he will say something more than that it is under review. At least he has three minutes to say it. I look forward hopefully to the minister's answer.


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as many of our colleagues are aware, prior to 1972 the basic rate of pension was amended from time to time,
June 9, 1977

usually following representations by veterans organizations that the rates had become out of date because of the advancing economy. These increases were usually on a flat percentage basis approximating what was considered to be fair and reasonable at the time.
In January, 1968, the rate of pension for a veteran whose pensioned disabilities were assessed at 100 per cent, and who was unmarried with no dependants, was $265 a month. A 10 per cent increase was granted on April 1, 1971, to bring the rate to $292 a month. The indexing of pensions was instituted, so that because of changes in the consumer price index the rate was increased to $302.51 a month, effective January 1, 1972.
It was recognized that some better method of determining the basic amount of disability pension had to be found, and in 1972 a joint study group on the basic rate of pension was established. This study group had representation from the veterans organizations as well as from the Canadian Pension Commission and the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Their report referred to the historic principle that pension was based on the earning power of a man in the class of an untrained labourer. On the basis that it would be more meaningful and simpler to administer, the joint study group recommended that the basic rate of pension be directly related to the earning power or unskilled categories of public servants. It also recommended that neither the pre-enlistment nor post-discharge financial condition of the disabled veteran should affect the amount of pension, but that it continue to be paid on the basis of the percentage of incapacity caused by the pensioned disability to perform work in the general labour market. If, for example, a veteran lost a limb, he should be pensioned for the loss of the limb and not because it was or was not particularly useful in his trade or profession.
In the upshot, the joint study group recommended that the salary, after tax, of a composite group, composed of five classes of unskilled public servants be accepted as the basis on which the disability pension should be based. This was done, and in June, 1973, Bill C-202 was enacted which established the basic rate of pension in relation to five named classes of unskilled public servants. This resulted in an over-all increase of pension at that time of some 24 per cent. Since then, there have been annual increases based on consumer price index changes, so that today the 100 per cent disability pensioner, unmarried with no dependants or other allowances, receives $556.62 a month.
In 1974, 1975 and 1976, because the pension rate was tied to the consumer price index, it was slightly more than it would have been if it had been tied only to the five categories of unskilled public servant. This year, however, after deduction of income tax, the spread between the income of the unskilled public servant and the pensioner has reached the point where the pension rate is $44.72 a month behind that of the composite group of unskilled public servants.
I am well aware of the spread and have the matter under study. Members of the House are aware, I am sure, that the Canadian Pension Commission and the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the other agencies for which I am responsible,
Metric System
are constantly seeking ways and means of improving the lot of the veterans.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been withdrawn.
Motion withdrawn.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 6.30 o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At 6.31 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Marchand (for Mr. Chretien) that Bill C-23, to facilitate conversion to the metric system of measurement, be read the third time and do pass, and the amendment thereto of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton).
Peter Elzinga: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak on Bill C-23 and the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton), seconded by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers), suggesting that the bill should not be read the third time now but that the committee should have an opportunity to reconsider certain of its clauses.
I have followed the debate closely and I appreciate what has been said by the majority of members taking part. It is obvious to me, from listening to the debate, that the farmers have nobody to speak for them on the government side since no one on that side has participated in the debate on this amendment.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Either that or they are afraid.


Peter Elzinga: Had it not been for the official opposition, this bill would have been already enacted into legislation and our farming population would have found on February 1 that they would have to keep their figures in terms of hectares and tonnes. The Liberal administration thought that this bill would go through with a short debate prior to the Christmas recess, but as is so often the case western members sensed that this

June 9, 1977
Metric System
was something to which the prairie farmer was bitterly opposed.
This amendment to the Canadian Wheat Board Act will not sell another bushel of wheat for the western farmer or raise the price of that wheat by one cent. It simply reduces the cost to the grain companies which have to convert bushels into tonnes for international markets, which they have been doing for years. If this bill is enacted into legislation as it presently stands, we will have many angry individuals in western Canada. I have a stack of letters on this issue, all expressing opposition to it.
Our friends opposite so often talk about democracy, but I think this legislation gives us a fine example of the way the government believes in participatory democracy. I say the government does not believe in participatory democracy. I have a stack of letters close to a foot high and I hope to send out my speech to each one of these letter writers, though if hon. members wish I could tabulate them for the House.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I have some here which I can read too.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. The hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga) has the floor for the purpose of making a speech, and I think we should all listen.


Peter Elzinga: Anyone who travels in western Canada realizes that the majority of the western farmers are opposed to this legislation. I was in my constituency this past week discussing various issues with the farming population, and this was one of their main areas of concern. As the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie) pointed out earlier, they were very disappointed when the government pushed the abolition of capital punishment down their throats, and this is another issue which is being pushed down their throats.


Mr. Marchand:: There was a free vote on capital punishment.


Peter Elzinga: There was no free vote on capital punishment in the cabinet. That was the biggest farce there ever was, and you know it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member for Pembina will please address the Chair.


Peter Elzinga: There was no free vote.


Mr. Roy (Laval):: I voted for retention, and that was a free vote.


Peter Elzinga: A free vote-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. I suggest we get back to the bill under discussion. Capital punishment is now in the past.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[Mr. Elzinga.)


Peter Elzinga: As I was saying a little earlier, Mr. Speaker, I have a stack of letters about a foot high all expressing opposition to metric conversion. Rather than read them all into the record, let me refer to one brief letter from Pibroch, Alberta, which is in my constituency, which expresses the sentiments of the correspondence that I have received.
Dear Sir:
I understand that the bills concerning metric changeover have not yet passed in the House of Commons, and I would like to register my complete opposition to the passing of any legislation which would put this metric system into operation. Farming is difficult enough without any further complications, such as this would cause.
I trust that you as my representative in Ottawa will vote against any passing of bills to further change over to metric, especially where it concerns the farming industry in any way.
This is exactly what the amendment seeks. We wish further to consider the clauses affecting the farming population. Clauses 2, 6, 8 and 10 refer to the farming sector and deal specifically with tonnes and hectares.
I believe the minister stated on second reading that all of the farm organizations were in favour of this legislation. The heads of these farm organizations were about as in tune with the people as this Liberal administration is; they did not bother to gather a consensus among their own membership. What happened was that they were brainwashed by our friends opposite to consent to this metric legislation. They followed the foolish advice of the present government.
Since then the locals of the many farm organizations have gathered together in opposition to this legislation. I have a letter from the Westlock District 32 Unifarm which I wish to put on record; it challenges what the minister has said in this House, namely, that the farm organizations were in favour of this legislation. This is another example of hon. members opposite misleading this Chamber. This is a letter from Mrs. Donna-Faye Brown, secretary of the Westlock District 32 Unifarm:
At a recent director's meeting of Westlock District 32 Unifarm a motion was carried that the understated resolution be submitted to Unifarm Region 3 Convention to be held at Freedom Hall on April 5, 1977. A subsequent motion was carried instructing the secretary to forward to yourself a copy of the same resolution.
The resolution herewith reads:
Be it resolved that, in Canada, both the mile and
the acre be retained as the unit of measure in our system of measurement.
It is our hope that the resolution may add strength to the arguments of yourself and your colleagues in the debate concerning metric conversion.
I am encouraged to see the membership rise up'in opposition to this legislation. I think that the leaders of various farm organizations have now found that they put themselves in a difficult position in consenting to this legislation at the beginning. We are finding with this legislation, as with so many pieces of legislation which the government brings forward, that the government has no idea of the cost involved. All we can do is estimate the cost. In reality, I do not believe the present administration has even inquired what the estimate is. In the United States the metric conversion cost estimate ranges from $40 billion to $100 billion. Taking the usual ten to one differential between Canada and the United States, that
June 9, 1977

means that between $4 billion and $10 billion will have to be spent here to convert to the metric system.
As I said earlier, it appears that the government, even though we are facing inflationary times and massive government spending, is not concerned at all with the cost of converting to the metric system. One has only to look at the record of the government to be rather hesitant to support anything that it brings forward.
Sidestepping the issue of metrication for a moment, if we review some of the past happenings on the part of this administration we see that in this country we are facing record inflation, record unemployment, record trade deficits, record budgetary deficits-


Mr. McKenzie:: Record deficits everywhere.


Peter Elzinga: -record interest rates, record mortgage rates, and record over-all prices. We have the highest level of foreign borrowing of any industrialized nation. The way this government has driven us into debt is indeed frightening. As the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie) said, we have record budgetary deficits. We find eight out of the last nine budgets presented by this government to this Elouse were deficit budgets. When the minister decides to enter into this debate, I hope he will share with us exactly what metrication is going to cost Canadians.
We received a commitment from the minister that certain portions of this legislation will not be proclaimed until he consults with the various farm organizations. We on this side of the Elouse want more than just what he says. We want some specifics so that we can be assured they will abide by what they are saying to us. We have seen them talking out of both sides of their mouths too often. One only has to look back at the 1974 election, and the flip-flop which occurred shortly after that election in regard to wage and price controls. One can go further back than that and look at the 1972 election when we advocated a modest increase for pensioners and the indexing of personal income taxes. At that time we were severely criticized by our honourable opponents.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Honourable? Come off it.


Peter Elzinga: Maybe I should say "not so honourable". Immediately after the 1972 election, when they formed their minority position, we found them implementing exactly what they had criticized us for. On many occasions our party has attempted to be helpful in dealing with this legislation, but we find Liberal members opposite are not willing to take a little bit of good advice and give in to the wishes of the western farmer. Since they have refused to abide by the good advice we have shared with them in respect to this legislation, 1 can assure hon. members opposite that we are going to put up a strenuous fight in opposition to this bill. If they have any hope of recessing on June 30 with this legislation passed as it is, I think they should seriously reconsider it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Metric System


Peter Elzinga: It is obvious some Canadians are going to be hurt more than others when we convert to the metric system.


Len Marchand: Sharpen up your arrows.


Peter Elzinga: Oh, we shall.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Look who is sharpening the arrows.


Peter Elzinga: The over-all cost in the end is going to be assumed by the consumer because of the increase in commodity prices. This is another example of the lack of concern which this administration has for the western farmer. As 1 said earlier, I have not heard one member opposite speaking to this amendment. That only leads me to believe that there is no one on that side who is seriously interested in representing the view of the western Canadian farmer.
In closing, I commend the hon. member for Red Deer and the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain for bringing forward the amendment. It was encouraging to see the discussion we had in private members' hour also. We found much the same thing as we are finding in this debate, two western individuals in the Progressive Conservative party put forward a proposition to the government respecting production of papers, and hon. members on that side of the House did not see fit to respond with a western member even though it concerned allegations in the province of Saskatchewan. It is extremely disappointing that a government hoping to govern a nation does not recognize the views of a certain segment of our population, that specifically being western Canadians.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure tonight in rising to support the amendment to refer this bill back to committee. 1 also take pleasure in the fact that some great members of parliament who sat in this House came from the constituency in which I was born. As a member of parliament, I spoke first as the member for Bow River, Alberta, and now I speak as the member for Calgary North, which is a seat which was created in 1968. My grandfather settled there in 1883.
Like many hundreds of thousands of people, my father went out to western Canada. He stopped at a place called Saskatoon. At that time there were two houses, a few tents and a slew on Second Avenue. My father was a city boy, a chartered accountant from London, although he was Welsh. He met a man by the name of MacMillan from Glengarry, Ontario. They had a discussion concerning where he should settle and decided to go southwest of Saskatoon. At that time in 1905 there was no railroad. On that site today there is a town by the name of Rosetown. There used to be a constituency by the name of Rosetown-Biggar. A very distinguished gentleman used to have breakfast at my home on many occasions, a Mr. M. J. Coldwell.


An hon. Member:: A great Canadian!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, he was a great Canadian. He was a very able member of parliament and was always a gentleman.

June 9, 1977
Metric System
I take great pride in entering this debate tonight because I hold in my hand Christie's Assessment and Tax Roll for Saskatchewan. When the settlers flocked from Europe, Ontario and Quebec to settle the west, they came from various walks of life.


Len Marchand: We were there first.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I do not know what you are talking about, but I am talking about history which the prairie people are proud of.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I would hope the minister would be as proud of the prairie provinces as 1 am. That is where I was reared. I was one of the grandsons of people who came from Quebec, Ontario, Europe and Asia.
The first school established at Rosetown was 2196 Muirland school. Last summer I was back visiting the old homestead, which is a beautiful home but no one is living there, and I went into the old library. It touched my heart to find the Christie's Assessment and Tax Roll which goes back to 1906. My father put together the list of the first settlers who settled there. In those days each settler was given a quarter section of land under the Torrens Land System, the metric system. If you did certain things to the land, then you could buy another quarter at $1 an acre. That country, which I am talking about with great pride, became the bread basket of the world. At 17 years of age I had the privilege of teaching school in a place called Zealandial, Saskatchewan, and 90 per cent of the people there were French Canadians, and great settlers.
In the area just south of there where I was raised, the settlers came from Ontario and Europe. When I look down the list of names of people past and gone, I see names like the Russells, the Ritchies, Frank Wooliiams, Charlie Palmer and many others. They put together a school in western Canada- Muirland school 2196. The taxes on each quarter were $8 in those years. It is all written down as to who paid and where.
The Torrens Land System was not something created by Canada, and that is why I mention it. It was created by a man from New Zealand, Mr. Toms, Q.C., who is also gone now. His partner, Frank Bestido, Lieutenant Governor of Saskatchewan, wrote a book, "The Torrens Land System". Long before people came from Ontario, Quebec, and various countries in Europe, surveyors carved out a system called the registration system according to which they divided the country into sections of 640 acres, each quarter section being 160 acres. That is the history of the west, the history of the bread basket of the world.
The bread basket of Canada has poured millions of dollars into Ontario and the industrial centres, buying farm machinery, cars and trucks. I see today in western Canada-I was home on May 24-a man with a tractor pulling 85 feet of drills, and I think of my father who told me that when he landed in Saskatoon he saw a mile and a half of Van Brunt

drills for sale and I think of the government which is ready to destroy our history. I think of the history of the development of the west, and I think of the time when telephones came in 1915. I remember hearing my father tell me when I was a boy that if you seeded land between one telephone pole and another at the edge of a quarter section of land, you had seeded ten acres and you had done half a day's work. That is the history of the west which the government is about to destroy with the metric system.
Today a farmer in the west and his family take great pride in speaking of their acres. He speaks about having threshed and combined the grain and having 30, 40 or 50 bushels of wheat to the acre or, if it was oats, of having 80 or 90 bushels to the acre. It is a great thrill, yet all that is to be done away with. Why, I do not know. Sometimes a person should use stronger language. I have crossed Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. If the minister, who is here tonight and who heckled me when I rose, does not believe that people have a great feeling and a great affection for that region which gave this country power and money from the grain-


Len Marchand: I know a little bit about history too.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Then don't heckle and don't support this bill which will destroy the history of the west. If you want to make a speech I will listen to you. What I am saying to you is that the government is bringing in the metric system. What does it all mean?


Len Marchand: Logic.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It will destroy all we stood for, destroy our traditions. That is what the minister wants. Let him go out and make a speech anywhere in the farm belt and he will find out the reaction.


Steve Eugene Paproski: What do they know about the farm belt?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I want to talk about the metric system for a few moments. Until now I have discussed the history of the west. I will read from an article which was written in 1906 which is pasted to the cover of the book. What does it mean? All the farms are divided into 160 acres. If they have more than a quarter section, say a section, that would be a farm of 640 acres. Every township has 36 sections. There are nine townships to a municipality, and of late they have formed countries. That has been the history and tradition of the west. Now, my friend, the minister, who says I must not lecture him, says, "What does it matter? This change is logical." In time, as my good friend who just finished speaking said, there will be a deficit of $6 billion or $7 billion. When I spoke on second reading I said it will cost each province at the very least $100 million to convert to the metric system.
Every seed drill will have to be changed. You know what a seed drill costs today? It used to cost $90. Now it costs $14,000. You know that every seed drill has a little gadget on it that has not been changed in 60 or 70 years. You move it when you put in the grain and it shows what you seed per acre. All that will be gone. What is history to this government?
June 9, 1977

What does the government feel? They put the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Horner) in the cabinet. Where is he tonight? When he sat on this side, did he speak out on the metric system? No. His father was made a senator. R. B. Bennett would know, his brothers and his sisters would know. He was supposed to save the west. All I can say is that little Jack Horner sat in his corner playing with his metric system.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I suggest to the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) that when he refers to members of the House he must refer to them by riding, not by name.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I did not refer to his riding because at one time I represented Bow River which was half of Crowfoot. I just quoted a little poem and I did not know whether Mr. Speaker would appreciate that I was referring directly to the new Minister without Portfolio who will try to take credit if this bill dies.
The people who will save western Canada from this bill and from this kind of legislation which will destroy our history are creating impossible situations which I will deal with in a few minutes. They said, "If we had a voice from Alberta in the cabinet, what we could do". They are still running over us. As I said, every parcel of land was surveyed. There are 160 acres to a quarter, 640 acres to a section, 36 sections to a township, and nine townships to a municipality. Now we have counties. As a lawyer I can tell you that you can go into any land titles office in western Canada and you can do an historic search.
You can see here that Mr. Wotherspoon from Harris, Saskatchewan, has a south east quarter, section 18, 160 acres. If his name is on that title in the land titles office and nothing is stamped on the back of the title, he knows he has a clear title to his land. Even if someone had a mortgage or a debt, unless he is registered, when that land is transferred, it can be done with ease because by law it goes to whoever the person is to whom the land is transferred. That system has been admired not only in Canada but throughout the world. In fact in Ontario, which has a different system of measuring land, you have to go back 200 or 300 years, and unless you have been practising law that long, you would have difficulty finding the title. Some of the firms in Toronto can tell you that that file contains a historic search of the land title and in 1960 they proved it was clear, but a young lawyer would have to go to the beginning of time to find out how many chains long that land is.
Our system is our history and our tradition. Every farmer and every person who lives in the city knows that if you go to the land titles office, you can check a title in two minutes and make a transfer with ease.
I dealt with how land was surveyed. If you go north or south in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Alberta, every two miles
Metric System
there is a road allowance. If you go east or west, there is a road allowance every mile. The roads are measured in rods and feet, and land is measured in acres, not hectares. I checked with my son-in-law to find out what he is earning per hour as a surveyor. He earns about $18 an hour to re-survey western Canada on this new system. I said this would cost $100 million. I apologize. To change quarter sections, sections, townships, municipalities and counties to the new system would probably cost $500 million.
The minister, who has left the House, said the new system was logical, but the government says it does not want to upset anybody politically because it now has a new minister from the west. The government wants to create more Liberals for the Liberal party, so it will not force people who now measure in acres and rods to use hectares and metres. That is only to be done when people sell their farms.
I listened to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) talk about lawyers. If there ever was a chance for lawyers to make a fortune on estates, this is it. Every time somebody dies in Manitoba, Saskatchewan or Alberta, acres have to be converted to hectares and rods to metres, and what will the legal bills amount to? The governments of the provinces I spoke of are going to have to fork out money, but the man who owns the land will have to pay as well.
Let me go to another problem. The cities of Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Saskatoon, Regina, Red Deer and others have the same system. There are lots within blocks, the same as with farmlands. The minister said the new system was logical. It is not only not logical; it will destroy the history and the very fabric of what western Canada was built on, and it is going to cost every taxpayer, whether he lives in the city or on the farm in western Canada. It will cost each taxpayer hundreds of dollars just because somebody likes the idea of changing acres to hectares and rods to metres. If ever there was a bill which should be defeated, this is it. There is no reason for it.
In 1928 we produced a great crop, 600 million bushels. Since then, in the 1960's and 1970's we produced 700 million to 800 million bushels, but in 1928 it took hard work to grow that grain. Men worked with horses and small machines and built this country to the point where it is known as the finest breadbasket in the world. Everything is measured in bushels per acre when the cars take the grain to the ports. Nobody has complained internationally.
I hear many cries in this House about culture in certain areas of the country, but it does not matter about our culture in western Canada. People from Ontario, Quebec, Europe and Asia came and settled in the west, and they built the roads. I am told that if we took all the roads in the rest of Canada, there would not be as many as there are in Saskatchewan. All the roads in Saskatchewan are measured in rods and feet, and the land is measured in acres.
I am glad that my friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), is in the House. I paid a great compliment to a former leader of his. However, I wish that a farm member from his party had stood and spoken as I have

June 9, 1977
Metric System
spoken tonight. The NDP government in Saskatchewan has beaten this government in the race. Perhaps St. Laurent was right that members of the CCF were only Liberals in a hurry.
I have in my hand the Saskatchewan Gazette for April 30, 1976. Under "Regulations Under the Regulations Act" it says:
All plans submitted for registration purposes in any of the Land Titles Offices shall be subject to the approval of the Chief Surveyor-
Nobody complains about that.
-and all surveys, performed on or after July 1, 1976, plans of which are intended for registration purposes, shall be drawn with Metric measurements ...
What a pitiful situation for the farmers. They are only now waking up to this. The only reason farmers and city people know what is happening today is that there has been a week of debate. The farmers do not want this, and neither do city people. Members of the NDP are Liberals in a hurry. Whether the provincial government will enforce metrication without this federal legislation, I do not know.
I see that someone has called the Minister without Portfolio, and I hope the minister from Crowfoot will take a position because he did not speak in the House on the metric system when he was a member of my party. I hope he speaks tonight, and I hope he speaks in cabinet. I want the Minister without Portfolio to call the deputy premier of Alberta, who is a great personal friend of mine, Hugh Horner. I want the minister to tell him that he supports what I am saying.


Len Marchand: He is a good friend of Jack's, too.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am sure he is.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Not politically.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I do not know about that. I am not getting into that subject.


Francis Fox: Let's keep politics out of it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let brotherly love continue.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: 
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: We hear a lot of talk about national unity these days, Mr. Speaker. Is there anything that would destroy national unity in the prairie provinces faster than this bill? It is a short and simple bill but is very destructive of everything for which we stand.
This is an historic night because there is an election going on in Ontario, Mr. Speaker, and I can understand that members want to know how things stand there. When I finish my remarks I will go and see for myself.


Mrs. Holt:: It is a minority.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: We do not know that. Even if we are a minority we stand against this kind of dictatorial authoritarian government that wants to destroy the fabric of our country. From the bottom of my heart I plead with the government to drop this bill. Get it out of the way. Even voting Conservative should not be such a crime that the fabric of our history and traditions is to be destroyed. That is my plea.
In the early 1900's the President of the Saskatchewan Grain Growers' Association addressed that body in Regina. He said:
In referring to this subject in my address to you a year ago, I made the statement that what was wanted was "a general recognition by all classes of the importance of agriculture, and an honest endeavor by all to place it in the position to which it belongs." The importance of agriculture is now fully recognized, it being admitted by all that only thru the prosperity of agriculture can our country as a whole be prosperous. What is being done in the way of permanent assistance? Very little. However, there is an abundance of advice from almost innumerable sources, and no doubt of good intention, yet of such a conflicting nature that the farmer has about come to the conclusion that he had better follow his own dictates. Mixed farming has been the cry-raise hogs, etc. What do we find in connection with the marketing of hogs? Exactly the same conditions as with wheat.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. 1 regret to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted time has expired.
June 9, 1977

He may continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I can end on that note. I just want to add that the foregoing address was published on February 17, 1915, but the same problems exist today. I wanted to speak tonight because of the destruction of the history of our country.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I had not planned to speak tonight but the Grecian eloquence of the hon. gentleman who just spoke has brought me to my feet, magnetized by his magnificent oratory and the plea he made to the stoney hearts of the government to stop this attempt to crush the western farmer beneath their grinding heel.
I do not think there have been many speakers from the east in this debate and I believe it is the time for Newfoundland to come to the aid and assistance of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: It is quite obvious that the elevation of our late colleague to the late cabinet is not working; the western farmer is as deserted as ever. Despite the movement of the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Horner) across the hallowed precincts of this Chamber, the western farmer is still left without a friend in cabinet.
I had hoped that the Minister without Portfolio would speak tonight and explain to the House what his policy is with respect to this legislation. So far we have not noticed any great changes in it. The House has been promised that if the legislation is passed-that if members of the House endorse this attempt to impose the metric system on the western farmer-the relevant clauses will not be proclaimed until sometime in the future. We do not know when, but probably when the government is satisfied that the western farmer is properly quiescent it can sneak the proclamation through by order in council. It will not proclaim these sections of the act immediately, ministers promise. That is the inducement held out to members on this side to go along with this pernicious piece of puffery. We are not going to be taken in by that, Mr. Speaker.
The same gentlemen who brought us wage and price controls now attempt to bring in the metric system for western Canada in the same way. They promise it will not be proclaimed, but in a few months time we will hear that there is a national emergency and that if they do not proclaim it the country is going to collapse. They will go ahead and proclaim it. Surely they cannot expect anyone on this side of the House to buy that proposition.
I have not spoken on behalf of the Newfoundland farmer before; this is a new departure for me, Mr. Speaker, and I am glad to speak on their behalf. We do have farmers in Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker, although I know that is hardly expected when one realizes the sophistication of the Newfoundland members in this Chamber. We are an extremely
Metric System
sophisticated group-even the Liberals-but still we do represent farmers and fishermen. And our fishermen are quite sophisticated too, just as western farmers are sophisticated.
The western farmer is not going to have the sheep's wool pulled over his eyes-he is quite well aware that what someone is attempting to pull over his eyes is made out of false wool.
In my district of St. John's West the farmers unilaterally oppose this attempt to inflict the Liberal metric system on them. The dairy farmers in my corner of the world-and we have in the houlds at least 20 or 25 dairy farms-expect a gallon of milk from a cow, not some kind of metre or millimetre or whatever amount they are going to get in the future. They are used to milking their cows and getting a gallon.
The farmers of the houlds are dairy farmers, but we also have fine farmers in my district who grow potatoes. There are some ignorant people in this House who think we have no agriculture. We grow a magnificent root crop; our soil is ideally suited for root crops. We have the glorious potato, brought in from Ireland in the 19th century. It grows well in Newfoundland, and we are used to gallons of potatoes, not litres. We use the peck and the bushel, and we do not want the metric system imposed on top of these measurements until there has been some period of education and some public money spent to educate the public beforehand.
This legislation is all of a piece with the Minister of Transport's policy of user-pay. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) is also the minister responsible for libel and slander, and the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. He was here this afternoon but is not here this evening. He is not here this evening because the minister who is not responsible for anything, the hon. member for Crowfoot, is here this evening, and we are hoping that the minister not responsible for anything will be speaking this evening on this bill, because we understood that the main reason he crossed the floor of the House was to see this piece of legislation stopped. So far it has not happened.
How does this legislation tie in with user-pay? It ties in in this manner. If this legislation passes, the user will not know what he is paying. It is too obscure. It is like the user-pay principle, from which the Minister of Transport is now pulling back. But he wants this honourable Chamber to pass this legislation. How do I conclude that the user of products will not know how much he is paying for something? He will not know, because he is not familiar with the units of measurement measuring the goods for which he is asked to pay. I have here, in this Chamber, proof of a sinister Liberal plot whereby the consumers of Canada will not know what they are paying for what they use.
In my hand I hold an advertisement from the Advocate Farms News and Shopper, that world famous newspaper published in Alberta, 1 believe. It shows that you can buy a Chun King dinner, in a 1.13 kg. tin-I presume that's a kilogram tin-for $1.65. Mr. Speaker, how am I to know how that translates into an ordinary tin? What's a "kg.?" Here I

June 9, 1977
Metric System
am, an ordinary little shopper going into the ordinary shop to buy a tin of Chun King dinner, and I am faced with a 1.13 kg. tin which costs $1.65. How can I compare that to what I bought last week? How am I going to know if the price has gone up or gone down? How am 1 going to know if I am getting a bargain or not getting a bargain? Your average housewife is going to go berserk when she faces this sort of thing, when she goes to the supermarket and has to figure it out.
Let's say she goes in to look for coffee. We all know how high coffee has climbed recently. It has got more and more expensive. We even have to pay 20 cents for a cup of coffee in these hallowed precincts. The only reason why so many people are fighting to get in here is that they can buy cheap coffee, at 20 cents a cup. We get a real bargain here in coffee. Everywhere else in the world the price of coffee has gone sky high. Brazilian coffee is now very expensive.
Let's say the poor housewife goes into the supermarket and wants to buy some coffee. She sees this very attractive advertisement 1 hold in my hand, printed in black and white. The white letters say "Don't forget"; I don't know what they are asking you not to forget, but that's what it says, "Don't forget." Looking below that, she sees coffee listed. She can get Airway whole bean coffee; that surely is a good brand of coffee. Then she sees she can get a 907 g. bag. What in the name of heaven is the poor soul going to do when she sees that? How does she know how a 907 g. bag compares with a tin of coffee? We used to be able to call them tins. You went in the shop and you bought a tin of coffee. Now a 907 g. bag costs $4.69.
Well, let's say she wants to drink crystals. She may be a crystal drinker. I believe out west they drink a lot of crystals. They have a lot of dry weather out there, a lot of dust. It makes them drink crystals. You can buy Empress orange flavours. You can get 4 x 9.2g. pkg., apparently for 77 cents. What in the name of heaven is she to make of this? That's why I say this is an accompaniment to the user-pay policy, that is to say, the user will not know what he is paying under this policy. And it has been brought in because the Liberal government has been able to control inflation.
If the government has been able to control inflation, we would never have had this bill before us, never. Inflation was at 10 per cent; now it is at 7.8 per cent, I believe, and going up. The wage and price controls have failed. They are an utter and abysmal failure and not working. Inflation is vibrating through the economy again and the government, aware it cannot control inflation, does not want the public to know inflation is still going on, so it is changing the whole measurement system to make sure nobody can tell if it has gone up or gone down.
What is going to happen to Statistics Canada if this barbaric plot is enacted in legislation? I do not want Mr. Speaker to think that I am not being relevant to this bill. I relate my remarks to Clause 3 of the bill, the amendments to the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act. I would have thought the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Abbott) would have gone off his rocker when he saw his name used like
[Mr. Crosbie.J
this in this bill, I imagine even without his permission. These amendments to the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act would remove the reference to Canadian units of measurements and would thereby eliminate obligatory dual marking in favour of single metric marking. Ah, Mr. Speaker, they think we can't read, that we can't understand what that means. That means that we will not have two systems of marking, one alongside the other, so that the person used to the original system can see how the original compares with the new, and therefore know the new means. That is what the dual system would do. But they are going to eliminate that in favour of single metric marking.
Mr. Speaker, with single metric marking there will not be a mother in the country who will know what she is paying. What is the Minister of Small Business (Mr. Marchand) doing about this? He is assisting the business community to give every mother the "business," if he allows this to go through the House. I ask the minister to look at Clause 3 of the bill. I will bet you it was not discussed in the sacred precincts of the cabinet room in the East Block, or wherever the cabinet meets. Perhaps it meets in the West Block now since the Minister without Portfolio has joined the cabinet. I am sure he would not meet in the East Block, so it would have to be the West Block.
Did the cabinet study this clause providing for the elimination of obligatory dual marking in favour of single metric marking, because not a consumer in the country will know what he is paying, except the CBC. The CBC will be able to figure it out; it has a staff of tens of thousands. Perhaps 10,000 of them will be put to work figuring this system out, figuring out what single metric marking amounts to. But the rest of us do not employ staffs of tens of thousands. CTV does not have that large a staff. I don't know how CTV is going to do it.


Steve Eugene Paproski: What happened to your film?


John Carnell Crosbie: I will come to that in a moment.
The next item in the advertisement is very serious for those who like pancakes and waffles. You can buy Empress syrup for pancakes and waffles in 1.25 kg. bottles. Even the Russians are coming into it; they talk about the kg. Then, you can get tomato juice, Libby's Canada Fancy in a 540 ml. tin, for 39 cents. How is anyone to make sense of that? Are the constituents of the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) in Nova Scotia to go into a food store and know what a 540 ml. tin for 39 cents is? How will the housewife compare that tin with last week's ordinary, human tin, with the tin she understood, a tin that had some warmth, a tin she could recognize, the cost of which she knew? When she sees this tomato juice listed at 39 cents she will think, "My God, this is a bargain!" She is going to buy a 540 ml. tin, but it may cost twice as much as it cost the week before.
The western farmer does not want to engage in this conspiracy against the consumer. It is the Liberal government that is engaging in this conspiracy. The western farmer wants to sell his products honestly, in acres, or bushels per acre. He doesn't want to sell it per hectare. Whoever heard of the likes of it?
June 9, 1977

He wants to sell his produce in an honest fashion. He wants the housewife to know how much she is buying when she buys a bushel. He is not interested in the hectare-I have trouble enough pronouncing the word. Anyway, I don't like it.


Simma Holt: What do you like?


John Carnell Crosbie: The hon. member for Vancouver

whatever it is-will have her chance to speak in the debate.


An hon. Member:: It is Vancouver-Kingsway.


John Carnell Crosbie: Since the hon. lady will be here only a few more months, until the next election, she had better speak as often as she can.


Simma Holt: Don't you ever worry?


John Carnell Crosbie: I have heard from Vancouver that the hon. lady is finished.


Simma Holt: I don't deal in irrelevance like you do.


John Carnell Crosbie: That is why the hon. lady is finished. Is the hon. lady going to vote for the bill which will blindfold the consumer? I always understood that she-


Simma Holt: Baloney.


John Carnell Crosbie: You won't even know how much baloney you are getting.


Simma Holt: No matter how you slice it, it is still baloney.


John Carnell Crosbie: When you go to caucus every Wednesday you don't know how much baloney you are getting.


Mr. Douglas (Bruce-Grey):: The hon. member does not know that "pkg" means package.


John Carnell Crosbie: Thank you. It is like the Liberals to help us underprivileged.


Simma Holt: And they are truly endowed intellectually.


John Carnell Crosbie: The Chamber will be descending several millilitres if the hon. lady continues to heckle me. We never had any ladies in the Newfoundland legislature. Now I have to watch my language all the time.


Simma Holt: Some day I will tell a Newfie joke.


John Carnell Crosbie: I have a British Columbia joke, but I will not tell it here. Since the opposition will be taking all the British Columbia seats in the next election, I do not want to interfere with that.


Simma Holt: I will compare my majority with yours any day, my friend.


John Carnell Crosbie: I will accept a majority of one if it is held up in the courts. As long as 1 lead by one vote, I do not mind. I do
Metric System
not want to give up being in this Chamber every Thursday. 1 would miss terribly being here, listening to the debate, seeing the fate of the government hanging on every breath. That is what 1 would miss the most.
I want to get back to what I was saying in connection with Clause 3 of this bill. When the average consumer of fruit cocktail goes into a store, he wants to know what he is getting. When he sees a Libby's Canada Fancy U.S.A. 796 ml. tin, if he does not leave the store before he gets that far, he finds it is 75 cents. He will not know how to compare that tin with a tin that last week would have been something else if it was not in ml's., which I presume is millilitres.
On and on it goes. They have even done it with the mushroom soup. Nothing is sacred any more. Now I will get to the hon. lady for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt).


Simma Holt: Come on.


John Carnell Crosbie: Served with sodas. The 284 ml. tin of mushroom soup, Campbell's condensed, sells at four for $1. It will certainly be condensed if it is in millilitres. I do not want to bore the House.


Simma Holt: You have done that already. You do not even have to try.


John Carnell Crosbie: I do not want hon. members to think my remarks are not well founded. This was referred to in a brief submitted to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs by the Consumers' Association of Canada. I am not making this up. I do not have that kind of imagination. This is a serious point.
The Consumers' Association of Canada, an association with tens of thousands of members across the country, stated in their brief, and I quote:
We do not want to impede the progress of the bill-
I do not want to impede the progress of this bill. None of us want to do that. We do not want to impede the progress of the government. The government has done a good enough job of that itself. We do not want to impede the progress of the government until the next election.
I continue the quote:
-but urge the deletion of clause 3 the intent of which is to "Remove the reference to Canadian units of measurements-"
In the United States that would be called un-Americanism. They have a committee on un-American activities. We should have a committee on un-Canadian activities.
"-(in the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act) and would thereby eliminate obligatory dual marking in favour of single metric marking."
Wait until the media find out what is happening in Clause 3. I do not know whether it will be on the CTV national news tonight. Pass the message to CTV that I will be available in fifteen minutes.


Crawford Douglas: They are not looking for a silly filler.


John Carnell Crosbie: I would cause a quick reversal of this bill.

June 9, 1977
Metric System
Many people thought there would be an evident change of policy with reference to the western farmer once one of the most well known western farmers got into the government. I often hear the hon. member for Crowfoot being sung about, in the famous song "Them Boots was made for Walking." He walked over to the other side into the cabinet.
The farmers of western Canada, the farmers of eastern Canada, those who grow wheat, those who grow barley, those who raise beef on the hoof, those who raise poultry, those who raise chickens, those who raise ducks, those who raise pork, and those who raise pigs, are waiting to see what change there will be in government policy.
Will the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) finally be brought to his knees? Will the minister responsible for the wheat board be brought to his knees as well? They were both on their knees before the hon. member for Crowfoot crossed, praying that he would not cross. Will they be brought to their knees again by the hon. member for Crowfoot and have a little humanity introduced into their policies as well as a little consideration for the western farmer who made this country what it is?
One of the great representatives, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), is on this very day in London, England. While he is gone they are attempting to sneak this through the House. I wish he were here tonight with his eloquence. The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale) misses the right hon. member for Prince Albert in view of the attention he paid him a week or two ago in a debate in this House.
We are all waiting to see what the Minister without Portfolio will announce in connection with this bill. Is he going to let us talk until 10.15 before he gets to his feet to announce that while the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has been away there has been a dramatic coup, we have a new Prime Minister, and the metric bill is being withdrawn? Is that what is going to happen?
The Prime Minister of the Seychelles went to the Commonwealth Conference in London. Lo and behold, two or three days later he was no longer the prime minister of the Seychelles. He did not have a "Sey" and he did not have a "chelles". He is out in the cold. Could the same thing happen to the right hon. member for Mount Royal? Could he be removed while in London at this Commonwealth Conference? Will the Minister without Portfolio carry out his promise to the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark) that there would be a coup d'etat as soon as the Prime Minister left the country?
We are not interested in the Ontario election tonight. We have another hour and ten minutes to see whether the Minister without Portfolio will announce a dramatic reversal of government policy. Is that why the Minister of Agriculture tonight is somewhere in deepest Ontario hiding? Is that why the minister responsible for the wheat board is not here this evening? Is that the reason why the Minister of Transport is so touchy these days about an ordinary insulting article about him? Is that what is driving him to wild chicanery, using his cabinet

influence on the newspapers of his fair province? Is that why he is so irritable? Is it because not only his user-pay but the user not knowing what he is going to pay is going to be reversed?
To get back to the bill, Mr. Speaker, we recognize that the west is the grain basket of Canada. It is not Newfoundland. We know we cannot compete with Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta in growing wheat, barley or corn.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Or rape?


John Carnell Crosbie: Yes, we can compete with rape. We will match them with rape.


Simma Holt: Rape what?


John Carnell Crosbie: However, we cannot compete in most other agricultural products.
I also want to mention the fishermen because I am sure they are involved in this diabolical plot. Fish are sold in quintals. What will happen to the quintal? Is the quintal to be tossed aside as though it were an abandoned wife? Is the quintal to be no more, just because a Liberal government in Ottawa has been in office for 30 years, arrogant and drunk with power? Does it intend to slash the quintal away? The quintal has stood us in good stead since 1497 when the first Italian immigrant came to Newfoundland, John Cabot. I want the Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Guay) to note that the descendants of Cabot are waiting in Newfoundland for a multicultural policy that will do something for the Cabots.


An hon. Member:: Does a squid squirt metric?


John Carnell Crosbie: That is a neat question, Mr. Speaker. What is going to happen to the quintal? What is going to happen to the hundredweight if this vile piece of legislation passes the House tonight? What is going to happen to the fishing industry if this vile piece of legislation passes this House tonight? Hon. members opposite will have a lot to answer for.
I want to point out something else in the bill. I do not want hon. gentlemen to think I have not read the bill. I have read every bill in this book. I spend my nights reading bills.


An hon. Member:: How about paying them?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: I try to avoid paying them. Let us turn our attention to a very liberal clause in this bill, Clause 4, the gas inspection part of the bill. Every Liberal will be familiar with that. Every Wednesday morning they get injected with a little Liberal gas at the caucus so that they will all say "Hear, hear" and "Hurrah, hurrah" every time they get a new convert to the cabinet. Clause 4 says-listen to this; I do not want any heckling while I am reading these sacred clauses of the legislation.


Ralph Goodale: What is a megajoule?
June 9, 1977


John Carnell Crosbie: My golly, he is right on the bit, there. It says:
The unit of measure for the sale of gas by energy units shall be the megajoule or the British thermal unit.
Well, on behalf of the right hon. member for Prince Albert I am glad to see the word British left there. What is this word "megajoule"? What language is that? Is the minister who was formerly without portfolio and is now without culture here tonight to explain to us what language the megajoule is?


Simma Holt: Talk about lack of culture, for heaven's sake!


John Carnell Crosbie: The hon. lady from Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) is definitely a jewel. I don't know whether she is a megajoule or not. But who will explain what a megajoule is?
Here is an even better example that we should notice:
The unit of measure for the sale of gas by mass shall be the kilogram.
What does that mean? I ask the minister from Alberta: does the oil and gas industry know about this? Have they been alerted to this? Do they know that the btu's are going to be megajoules-that the family jewels are going to be btu's, or whatever, and that gas is going to be sold en masse by the kilogram? Have the lobbyists been paying so much attention to the Mackenzie Valley pipeline that legislation like this is going through the House without their knowledge?
Mr. Speaker, if the hon. lady from Vancouver-Kingsway wants to rise on a point of order I see no reason why she should not. She is sitting there, mumbling away, disturbing my train of thought to the point at which I have not been able to put together a disconnected sentence tonight.


Simma Holt: How can you put it together when you haven't a thought to begin with?


John Carnell Crosbie: How much is beef on the hoof going to be under the new system? The hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave) spoke eloquently earlier today. He has a lot of beef on the hoof and he is a worried gentleman. He is a productive member of this Chamber, and there are a lot of productive people in Western Canada who will be considerably less productive if this bill goes through. I do not know how long it will take to get people used to this system.
Another thing. I am sick and tired of hearing the temperature here in centigrade, or whatever it is. Let us have the old fahrenheit given with the old centigrade. I get up in the morning and hear it is seven degrees. So I get out my muffler, my coat, my hat and my boots, and out I go. I find it is not seven degrees, but something like 30 degrees.


Mr. Horner:: Forty-seven!


John Carnell Crosbie: Then I hear it is 22 degrees. I still go out in my coat and my muffler and find it is well in the seventies. I am fed up with it. If I am to live here in Ottawa I want to know what the temperature is.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Metric System


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired. If he wishes to continue he must get the consent of all hon. members. Is there consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Simma Holt: Twenty minutes of nothing is enough.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I shall not take up the time of the House for too long after that excellent address by my hon. friend from St. John's West. It was a pleasure to listen to. In fact it gave us the same kind of joy as the results of the Ontario provincial election tonight- the splendid victory of the Progressive Conservative party, justifying again the decision to go to the people for a mandate to carry on the good work in the province.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I have not spoken on this legislation before tonight and I wish to express my concern with respect to this exercise in futility in which the government is engaged. The minister stated in response to my hon. friend from Vegreville that the government had no intention of proclaiming the legislation until, as I understand it, he had gone through a process of consultation with the farmers of Western Canada. The government House leader was in the Chamber earlier tonight. We have heard him rant and rage about the irrelevance of parliament, the fact that parliament is not really accomplishing its legislative tasks. Yet he has the audacity to bring forward a bill for discussion this evening which the responsible minister tells us he has no intention of having proclaimed until further consultation has taken place. I have not seen a greater waste of the time of parliament since I came here.
The consultative process in which the minister proposes to engage will not take place overnight. The hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) will recall the discussion we had in connection with the western grains stabilization bill. I might say that although I reject the hon. member's position absolutely with respect to crossing the floor, I still have respect for him as a man whom I have known for a long period of time, a man whom I like personally.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I am not unhappy about saying that. We have been friends for a long time. He will recall the fights we put up to get consultation with the western farmer with respect to the western grains stabilization bill. He will remember that our efforts were rejected by the government. He will remember what a Fight we had to put up to get the agricultural committee of this House to visit western Canada. Only after the greatest pressure was brought to bear on the minister responsible for the legislation was there a condescension to allow members of parliament to go to western Canada and hold hearings, receive briefs, and to bring about an educational process.

June 9, 1977
Metric System


An hon. Member:: We even went to your house.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Yes, they even went to my house. As a matter of fact, I lost a silver knife. It was only a $50 silver knife but I am not going to suggest that one of the Liberal members took it. That is how generous I feel tonight.
In a more serious vein, Mr. Speaker, the minister knows that the consultation process with the western farmers will not take place overnight. Why is he wasting the time of this parliament by bringing forward this legislation before he is in a position to tell us categorically what amendments he will make to the legislation and regulations to accommodate the western farmers? His statement is an absolute admission of the failure of the government properly to explain the metric legislation to the western farmers. It is a failure, and the minister knows it.
I do not take any great pleasure in saying that. Parliament should be able to work and the government should always try to do the best thing. But when there is failure and the minister admits it, then he has the responsibility for withdrawing the legislation and bringing in new legislation after he has consulted the western farmers. Wasting the time of parliament when we should be trying to get through more important legislation now before committee is an absolute travesty. If I ever hear the government House leader stand up and talk about wasting time, I will remind him of the kind of planning that leaves him with nothing else to present but this metrication bill.
it is my own impression from watching the implementation of metrication that the root problem is the method by which the government brought forward the general adoption of the metric system in Canada. I refer not only to the western farmers but to metrication generally. It has been pointed out on a number of occasions that the correct way to introduce metrication would be to bring in not a resolution, as convenient and appropriate as resolutions are in certain circumstances, allowing for the creation of a metric commission with what I consider to be wide, sweeping powers, but rather to bring in a bill which would specify precisely what steps would be taken, which in turn would be enshrined within the statute books of this country. In this way each step in the introduction of the metric system in Canada could have been considered, rather than the government's bringing in a bill setting up arbitrarily a metric commission which, although accountable to parliament somehow, does not appear before parliament on a regular basis. As far as I know it has never appeared before any standing committee of this House or reported to the House directly.
The reason we are in this predicament today is that this is another example of the government's attempting to impose from above a system of metric conversion, as much as I approve of such a conversion, by regulation instead of by legislation. It is the function of each and every one of us in this parliament to ensure that so far as possible-


Len Marchand: You are contradicting yourself.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The minister talks about contradictions. I could, of course, deal with the many contradictions on the part of the government with regard to this whole program, but I will not. Introducing the metric system through a group of civil servants who apparently are not accountable to parliament is the reason we are now facing difficulties, particularly so far as the western farmer is concerned.
The western farmer is a unique breed of person. I suggest he is the last of the really legitimate small, independent businessmen in this country. The western farmers generally across the country make a very substantial capital investment. As a result of monetary inflation, inflated land values and cost of equipment and materials, in order to get into operation even in a very modest way in western Canada a farmer must spend at least $150,000. This kind of capital investment produces for him an income which often is not all that great. He is now facing additional expense and additional concern in his operation.
The minister opposite is from western Canada and can understand how the small farmer is reacting to this process. A farmer does not have an easy life; he works hard for the money he makes. The minister talked about consulting with the farmer, and I was pleased to hear him say that because I believe that is absolutely necessary. This is why I am mystified that we are discussing this bill this evening and wasting the time of the House. I am mystified why the minister did not stand in his place immediately after my colleague from Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain moved his amendment, which gave the minister an ideal opportunity to consult with the western farmer through the vehicle of a standing committee, and say that he would accept it. Instead he kept silent in his place and told us nothing of the kind of consultation he has in mind.
We are all reasonable people in this House, Mr. Speaker; at least I would accept that as a basic proposition. But what the minister is asking us to do in terms of political reality is to accept his word in regard to what consultation will be held. I do not think the minister should treat us in this way; certainly I would not treat him that way. I want to know what the minister has in mind so far as consultations with the western farmer are concerned. As a representative of a western constituency I want to hear, assess and judge that particular proposal. I am not going to sit here like a puppet and give him carte blanche to consult with the western farmers. We have seen what the consultation has consisted of thus far, and it has not been very impressive. Therefore, I ask the minister whether he is really serious about consulting with the western farmer. Why does he not stand up in parliament, which I suggest is the proper place, and say what he has in mind? What kind of amendments would he be receptive to? What kind of implementation does he have in mind? What kind of time frame would he accept in the application of the metric system?
The government has put itself into a very peculiar situation. As a result of this announcement it has seriously antagonized the farm organizations of western Canada. Without exception, the farmers, the representative associations and the farm
June 9, 1977

organizations across western Canada have condemned the minister and the government with respect to its inability to state clearly what it intends to do with respect to this legislation.
There are a number of articles which have been written in western newspapers and various agricultural newspapers across Canada. 1 would like to refer to the most recent article, which appeared in the Toronto Globe and Mail on June 3, 1977, entitled "Grain Men 'Fed Up To The Teeth' With Ottawa's Delay Over Metric". Mr. Bruce MacMillan, the chairman of the Canadian Grains Council, is highly critical of the way in which the government has dealt with this particular matter. This gentleman is the chairman of a group which has been set up by this government.


Len Marchand: Why don't you let it go through?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: If the hon. minister would only listen and stop talking, I would appreciate it. As a member of parliament I expect to be treated with the same degree of respect that I give the minister on every occasion. I want to know what the minister is going to do with respect to the implementation of this bill. For him to say that it will be all right and for me to trust him is not acceptable. As much as I like the hon. minister, I am not going to accept that type of proposition from him. I would not expect him to accept that from me, as logical and as reasonable a person as I am, in all modesty.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I would not expect the minister to accept that kind of carte blanche undertaking from me without having some idea. One has a responsibility to explain to his own constituents what is happening in parliament and what is going to happen with respect to any particular piece of legislation. My constituents are going to ask me: what has the minister got in mind? According to the minister, I am to go to my constituents and say that he says to trust him, that it will be all right and there will be some consultation. Who is he going to consult with? Is he going to consult with a group of Liberal supporters? Is he going to consult with a group of Liberal farmers? Is it going to be a group of Conservative farmers? Is it going to be a group of farmers from the Kamloops district? Is it going to be a group of farmers from Saskatoon-Biggar? I have no idea. I am not in a position to report to my constituents exactly what the minister has in mind. I do not think that is an unreasonable request.
The minister wants to know exactly what we should do to get this bill through. What time frame has the minister in mind? Is he going to consult for a week, a year, or ten years? I am interested in finding out what is going on. That is the reason I am speaking tonight. I am not simply standing up and talking to prevent the passage of this bill. On the contrary. I am speaking on an amendment which is a responsible amendment on the part of our party, as represented by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain.
Metric System
I should like the minister to have the opportunity of consultation which he said will take place. What is a more appropriate vehicle than a standing committee of this House of Commons going out to western Canada to hear the rank and file and give them an opportunity to bring forward their points of view with respect to this particular bill? That would give the standing committee an opportunity to digest this information and report it back to the House. There could be recommendations with respect to amendments to the bill, or conceivably there could be no amendments to the bill. We may be satisfied, after going out, that the bill in its present form is quite satisfactory. I do not reject that possibility. For the minister to sit in his place and wonder why we are not passing the bill is not acceptable, as far as I am concerned.
When this whole process started the farm organizations came forward at the request of the government and co-operated. Often at their own expense they allowed senior management personnel from these organizations to be seconded to the Metric Commission for the purpose of the implementation of the metric conversion in the farm industry. I can understand that sense of responsibility when requested by the government to come forward and serve. They are prepared to do so at their own expense in many instances. Those organizations were helping to talk about metric conversion, as far as the farm segment of our society is concerned.
I think, and the minister might agree, that they thought the government would be taking initiatives through the Metric Commission to deal with the average farmer and whether he would be represented by the farm organizations in question or not. Was this to happen by some process of osmosis? Was it thought that everybody in Saskatoon-Biggar comprehended completely, by the process of mental telepathy, what was going on in Ottawa? Was it thought that they understood and accepted the fact that these people were speaking on their behalf? It does not take a very large intellect to understand that it was clearly the responsibility of the government to undertake an educational process and let people know precisely what was in store.
The original date for the implementation of the metric system was to be February 1 of this year. The Western Producer, which is a newspaper published by the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, carried an article on January 27, 1977, entitled "But Are The Farmers Ready For It?" The article reads as follows:
Two spokesmen for the grain industry say their only concern about the Feb. 1 metric conversion in the grain industry is that farmers are not ready for the change.
That is an indication at the beginning of this year of the failure of the government to inform, educate, and apprise western farmers of what was involved in metric conversion. The government should have indicated to them what type of expenses would be incurred and what relief would be available in terms of tax, if any, for metric conversion.
The article goes on to say:
"Our impression is that things are pretty well ready to roll; what we're wondering about is how much discussion there'll have to be with farmers,'' says

June 9, 1977
Metric System
Bob Moffat, president of the Western Grain Elevator Association, made up of the general managers of elevator companies with country and terminal operations. (Mr. Moffat is general manager of Manitoba Pool Elevators.)
Here is a man who is a spokesman on behalf of farmers saying that the farmers are not ready for it. I am sorry the hon. member for Crowfoot is not here. Before he decided to become a member of this administration and to cross the floor, I recall very vividly the position he took with respect to this bill. He was adamant, and I think that is a fair word, with respect to the strategy that we should block this bill at any cost. I want to inquire now of the government and of the minister precisely what is happening. I do not want any more equivocation that if we pass this bill, they will not proclaim it. That is a lunatic proposition in my view.
In view of the strong feelings of the hon. member for Crowfoot with respect to this bill-because when he was on this side of the House he spoke very movingly and strongly about the western farmer resenting this bill and he said that it should be blocked at any cost, regardless of the time involved-I would like to know exactly whether or not the Minister without Portfolio-and in fact he is coming into the Chamber-will speak in cabinet on the bill.
As I mentioned at the outset, I like the Minister without Portfolio from Crowfoot. I was interested to read the article by Richard Gwynn in which he speculated about the minister's friend, Mr. Jim Coutts, and his motives in bringing the Minister without Portfolio into the party. I think the scenario is that Mr. Coutts wants to get a seat. He wants to run in Calgary, and he hopes the hon. member for Crowfoot will have sufficient political clout to help him. Perhaps the hon. member for Crowfoot feels that he will be successful in the election because he will stand side by side with a shorter, more corpulent city boy, the confidant of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), who will be running in Calgary next to the western rancher, the farmer from Crowfoot, or whatever his constituency will be.
I do not want to see the hon. member for Crowfoot get hurt by the Liberals. I know how cynical they are. I do not want to see this man Coutts elected, because there can only be one cabinet minister from the west, and the next thing you know it will not be the hon. member from Crowfoot but our friend, Coutts. I am saying that while he is in the cabinet I hope the Minister without Portfolio will try to talk some sense into his colleagues and will tell them, as he told us before he crossed the floor, what the western farmer thinks of this legislation, how strongly he opposes it, and that the time of parliament should not be wasted any further. I know that the hon. member for Crowfoot has a high respect for parliament-he believes in parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I do not think he would want to be part of any government that wasted the time of parliament with this kind of insult to parliament, the metric conversion bill, which

they have no intention of proclaiming. He is not that kind of man, and if he were I would be most surprised.
What I am saying is that so far as the consultative process is concerned, we in the Conservative party have put an amendment before the House which allows for consultation with the average farmer, and this is an ideal vehicle. I imagine that the minister would be anxious to get this bill to the next logical stage in its journey through the House by referring the bill back to the standing committee dealing with the bill so that during the course of the summer they can re-examine it when they would not be interfering with the farmers' operations.


Francis Fox: And the winter and the spring.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Yes, it may take some time. The Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) has a farming background.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Yes, in Morrin Heights.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: He has a rural background and he will know that sometimes when there is real consultation it cannot happen in the course of a week. It is something that takes a little time. When people are first aware of the fact that they have the right to come before the committee, they will not be intimidated and they will come forward and give their point of view. But this is a two-way process. Not only are we as a committee going out and hearing representations, I suggest, but we are also going out to learn, on behalf of our colleagues in parliament, precisely what the problems are, and what has to be done, on a first hand basis. We will be involved in the hearings not only with farmers but also with those responsible for the implementation of the metric system.
I do not want to take too much time but I felt compelled to participate in this debate, not having done so before, because I was prepared to listen and hear with an open mind the proposal of the government. But eventually even those of us who are prepared to give the government the benefit of the doubt have to stand up and say: just a moment, you have gone too far, you must tell us what you have in mind, you cannot expect us to go through the whole farce of arguing in parliament on the understanding that we are supposed to pass the bill which eventually will not be proclaimed. If you said that to some stranger who came to parliament, he would suggest that you should take medical advice because this is a lunatic proposal.
I see you are rising to your feet, Mr. Speaker. I want to conclude by urging that the minister take advantage of the offer made in this amendment, that he support it, and that he let us get on to the next piece of business. Then the metric conversion process will be a lot easier and more straightforward.


Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak tonight on the amendment of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) and on this important subject of metric conversion and the impact that this program is having on all sectors of our society, I must point out that when I speak of all sectors of our society I include people in the
June 9, 1977

northern parts of Canada where there is some farming and some ranching. They are the ones who are not up to date on what is happening with regard to the metric conversion for the simple reason that the news media are lacking in that part of the country so that most of them do not even know what is happening with the bill which is at present before us, nor do they know the fact that the bill will not be proclaimed. As the hon. member who spoke before me said, this is just a waste of time of the House.
The Canadian program for metric conversion has been implemented in a different manner than similar programs in the U.S. For example, in the U.S. they are making greater headway in terms of the conversion, but at the same time they have introduced subsidies to help small business in the conversion. This is one way in which metric conversion will certainly harm the industry of our country, and especially small businessmen.
I have to relate this directly to the northern part of the provinces where at present the cost of living is higher than in any other part of Canada. Conversion to the metric system will cost every taxpayer in the country, whether he pays for it with goods that will cost more from the main industry or from suppliers or whether he pays for it directly, and it is the people in the north who will be the ones to suffer most. Canadian industry views metrication favourably, and Canada's progress towards SI measurement is more advanced than in the United States, although U.S. industry is moving toward metrication at a faster pace than industry in Canada. It is unfortunate, however, that the Canadian manufacturing industry will be so hard hit by metrication. Some small firms will be harnessed with undue expenses in adapting to metric which will result in added costs. This will affect their competitive status and disrupt profits, with the added possibility of business failure in many cases.
Large corporations will be able to absorb the added costs incurred by conversion, and it is estimated that their competitiveness and market status should remain the same. It is small business about which I am most concerned.
Besides the adverse affect on small business, automobile dealerships, service stations, garages and especially mechanics will bear the brunt of metric conversion. This is of particular importance to the riding of Churchill, where service costs and the price of gasoline and automobile parts are higher than they are in the south. The people of the north, especially those in the Churchill constituency, can ill afford the increased costs which may be passed on to them as a result of increased operating costs due to the conversion of equipment and so forth to metric.
I am sure that farmers in the Churchill constituency are not up to date or even aware of what is happening with regard to metric conversion. They are not ready for it. They really do not want it at this time because they are just now completing their seeding, and they have not had an opportunity to be brought up to date on just how the metric system is going to
Metric System
affect them. It might be different where there is mass media, but many locations in the north have no television, no newspaper, and very limited radio service. If they depend on the mail service to carry any information, they might as well scrap that because our mail service is worse now than it was when we had to depend on dog teams to carry the mail in the north.
Lack of communications has a bad effect on small businessmen, small ranchers and small farmers in the north. Many of them have heard metric conversion mentioned, but that is about the extent of it. Metric conversion is certainly being pushed down the throats of farmers, and at this time they are not ready for it. Farmers and grain handling people should have another opportunity to come before the standing committee to discuss this bill more thoroughly.
The general economy of the north, where the cost of living is astronomically high compared with other settled parts of Canada, is being adversely affected. Most municipalities in the north have resigned themselves to the fact that equipment will have to be converted to metric and that there is going to be a tough transition period. Many town councils are still unwilling to acknowledge that metric measurement is on the way. Many municipalities are lost in the confusion of metric conversion, and many are afraid of the effect such a transition will have on unsophisticated small communities with small budgets. These communities are faced with having to convert to the metric system without any help from the government in the transition period.
When I speak of the economy, I refer to the effects metric conversion will have on prices. I am afraid increased costs will be passed on to consumers in the form of increased prices, and this will contribute to already serious inflation problems. As many hon. members can imagine, inflation is very serious in the northern parts of Canada. The effects of this legislation to facilitate conversion on agriculture are as important as they are on industry.
In the interlake region of Manitoba which is an area between Lake Winnipeg and Lake Manitoba, there is mixed farming, while the area around The Pas in the region known as the Carrot River Valley, is also an important agricultural region. I am not talking about farmers who own many, many sections of land but about those on small farms. They have had numerous crop failures in the last few years due to flood or drought. This year there has been substantial rain, and as a result they have been so busy they have not had the opportunity to find out much about the metric system.
The Minister of State (Small Business) (Mr. Marchand) issued a circular to farmers which carried a lot of information. Although the same information was shown on television and was in the newspapers it does not reach them all. There must be more sophisticated means to train and teach farmers about metric conversion. Farmers are not ready to accept it at this time; they are more interested in trying to make ends meet and getting their crops planted. This metric conversion should have been introduced at a future date and not now.
In both the regions I mentioned farmers complain that they have not had an opportunity to be brought up to date on what

June 9, 1977
Metric System
is happening with metric conversion, land measurement and so on, and if this bill is proclaimed they will be left behind the rest of society. Of course the government says it has no intention of proclaiming the bill.
The clauses in the bill that pertain to farmers have not been widely accepted in the farming community in western Canada. Both the farmers and the grain industry feel these measures are being imposed too quickly, without enough orientation or break-in time. In the northern parts of Manitoba because of the lack of adequate media outlets and possibly because they are not considered to be the more prosperous regions of Canada, the farmers have not had the opportunity to keep abreast with the changes that are taking place. The government expected them to set their work aside and take a course in metric conversion, but of course farmers do not have the time for this.
Although some farmers in my area have adapted very well to other changes that have taken place, many are confused and frustrated by the fact that no one from the department has visited them to explain the program. Goodness knows there are enough federal civil servants running around northern Manitoba that some could have met with farm organizations and brought them up-to-date on what is happening, especially when the media are not available to carry the information.
The Minister of State responsible for Small Business issued a statement earlier this year which denied the charge that farmers are not being informed about metric conversion. I confirm that the farmers I represent have not been informed about metric conversion, or not informed in the way they should have been. I am thinking especially of small farmers, ranchers, and small grain producers.
The statement outlines several programs on which the government has embarked to inform farmers of progress being made in conversion. The main program is called the "Awareness Program." I am sure many farmers in the Interlake and Carrot River regions are not even aware of the "Awareness Program", which was implemented from Ottawa. Anyone wanting information on the program had better write to the Metric Commission on Elgin Street in Ottawa. It is up to the government to see that the program is well publicized before it is implemented.
I say that farmers and people in the grain handling industry should be given the opportunity to appear before the standing committee in order to discuss metric conversion. The "Awareness Program" as implemented by the Minister of State responsible for Small Business is not sufficient to bring people up to date on what is happening in metric conversion. In any event I feel this bill should be referred back to the committee for further study so that farmers, large and small, can give voice to their concerns relating to metric conversion. We ought to see a greater degree of consultation with the grain industry, especially with farmers, and such consultation ought to take place before we continue our discussions on metric conversion.

The Hall Commission report recommended a doubling of the capacity of the Churchill elevator within the next few years. That recommendation is of concern to the bulk grain handling industry which depends on the port of Churchill. I understand that the conversion of this grain handling capacity to the metric system has not taken place. That conversion at Churchill was supposed to take place during the winter, since the elevator does not operate then. However, I understand the conversion is to take place some time this summer. I suggest it should not take place then, for we are trying to ship at least 30 million bushels of grain through this terminal, and I feel that conversion during the summer months could affect the movement of grain, or the amount of grain shipped through that facility in the summer. Of course if this conversion must take place it should be done during the late fall or early winter months and so not disrupt the grain shipping season.
Let me mention what metric conversion will mean to the people living on the 30 Indian reservations in the constituency of Churchill in northern Manitoba. As 1 said previously, many of these reservations are not served by any form of communication. They have no radio, television or newspapers. There are schools run by the federal and provincial governments. When I visited one of these communities not long ago, I asked what was happening with regard to metric conversion. The people there had no idea what I was talking about.
1 do not know how we are going to get this message across to people in outlying areas who do not have access to the media. How will we get the message of metric conversion to them when it is only a few short years that they have been attending schools in many communities? This is a completely different system. It will probably be easy to adapt to, but it will be a change that many isolated areas just will not be able to accept or adapt to at the same speed as other parts of Canada. We need to have a stepped up campaign in the media and the schools if we are going to meet any sort of commitment.
While some Canadians will be hurt more than others by the conversion, eventually all will be affected. Increased costs will be passed on to the consumer in the form of increased prices. Although the exact impact is unknown, the conversion is certain to contribute to an already serious inflation problem. I end my remarks by stating my support for the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain.


Mr. Bert Cadieu (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to make some remarks on this bill. Unfortunately I was absent from the committee and therefore not able to take the active part I would like to have taken when the bill was at committee stage. However, I did follow it very closely.
While in my constituency I was unable to find anyone in support of this bill. A few said that, no matter what they thought, it would come and they would have to accept it. However, no one stated that we should be accepting it at this time, jumping the gun before the country is ready for it.
June 9, 1977

This metric legislation which has been before the House for some time will affect the western grain farmer to the greatest extent. The Metric Commission instructed the grain trade to convert to the metric system as of February 1 of this year. However, this has been delayed for some time because the bill is not yet through the Houses
Members can find ammunition with regard to this bill. All they have to do is read Qpen Forum or the Western Producer to see where westerners stand on this matter. I do not know why the minister and the government want to railroad this through the House.
In effect, the main change for farmers will be that his acres will be no more. They will be replaced by hectares, 2.2 acres, while the buying of grain from the farmer will be in tonnes, which is about 2,200 pounds. From the time the bill has been in committee, the official opposition have been pointing out the unfairness of trying to railroad this bill through the House at this time. We attempted to stop the bill since it would appear to be of little use to those who deal with country elevators. The system will cause nothing but confusion to' the farmer who, of all segments of the grain trade, is least able to cope with it.
Furthermore, the United States is not likely to convert to hectares or tonnes for a considerable time, so we shall be out of step when it comes to farm machinery, herbicides and fertilizer. The prime mover in this chain seems to have been the Metric Commission, followed by the Wheat Board and the Grain Commissioners; the various grain handling companies have acquiesced.
The railways will still ship in bushels as they have no intention of changing over until 1981.
The Wheat Board has given as its reason for the changeover that it will save $1,000,000 in computations.
The Conservatives have asked that the acre be retained and that the farmer sell grain at the country elevator at the bushel measure until we standardize with the United States. The Metric Commission, however, with the Wheat Board agreeing, say this will not be as tidy a system and that it is necessary to introduce the metric system for grain across the board.
The Liberal members of the committee supported the changes aggressively but it is interesting to note that this change from acres and bushels only affects the designated Wheat Board area, while the rest of Canada will not likely face any changes for some years so far as acres to hectares is concerned.
I am rather suspicious that the government instituted it in the Wheat Board area to see how it will be accepted. We saw this going on at the committee stage. When I look at the bill and think of the effect it will have on all classes of people, I am sure those who have been supporting it have not been reading their mail or taking note of what has been going on at home.
Like my hon. friend from Churchill I also represent a northern riding and I have no doubt as to how the bill will be accepted in the north. It will not be well received. The
Metric System
fishermen will certainly be against it, too. This is something which the government cannot railroad through the House. I am reminded of an elderly woman I heard from and who was downright disgusted with the whole thing. She was just about heartbroken. This is about the truest way in which I can explain it. She said, "We will never know how much our grandchildren weighed, how tall they were."


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: And its all your fault over there.


Albert C. (Bert) Cadieu: I enjoyed the speech made tonight by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie). His comments were so close to public opinion with respect to their needs when marketing and making their purchases. Such confusion I have never heard of, and I cannot understand it for the life of me. I congratulate the members on this side for the wonderful speeches they have made on the bill, and I congratulate the hon. member for Qu'appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) on his amendment. He has offered the government a way of getting out of the mess into which it has put us. The government should strongly consider withdrawing this bill altogether at this time and bringing it back again when the time is right, which is likely to be some while to come.
If I had received any encouragement from my constituents to accept this bill, Mr. Speaker, I would have a different view of it. I believe in advancement and in promotion, but I cannot understand what the government is trying to do at this time. 1 have received no encouragement regarding this bill from any segment of the population in my riding. This is why the minister should consider withdrawing this ridiculous bill.
I used to hear some of the people from European countries in my constituency saying that this bill would be all right, but even they do not want it now. They have learned the system we use and are backing away from this bill. They have been so long away from the metric system which is used in Europe that they are not so happy about adopting it again. I have not found one person who is really happy with it. They have changed their minds and I should like to see the government change its mind, instead of trying to railroad this bill through.
I know the confusion that exists about it. I was in my constituency last week and spoke to people who will be affected by this bill, the various measurements for fertilizers, herbicides and so on, hectares and tonnes and all the rest of it. The whole thing is a mess. The government should listen to the enlightened advice given it by the official opposition regarding what the bill means to the country as a whole. It is not too late to accept this amendment and to get down to some common sense thinking. May I call it 10.30, Mr. Speaker?


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the acting House leader what business it is the intention of the government to call tomorrow?

June 9, 1977
Business of the House


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, as indicated earlier in the day by the government House leader, tomorrow we intend to begin with Bill C-6 dealing with diplomatic immunities. We have adopted the necessary motion to bring that legislation back from the standing committee so it can be dealt with tomorrow on the floor of the House. After concluding Bill C-6 we intend to move to Bill S-3, dealing with the Deposit Insurance Corporation and conclude third reading. We will then move to Bill C-36 dealing with motor vehicle safety, and Bill C-40, the aeronautics legislation. I believe there is a disposition in the
House to proceed with both those items through all stages, or at least as far as through to third reading stage.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And if we complete all that, Mr. Speaker, will we then deal with Bill C-30?


Ralph Goodale: We will consider that, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 10.30, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 10.31 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Special Order.

Friday, June 10, 1977