1977-06-14

Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport) moved: that Bill C-34, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act respecting the establishment of marketing plans and to amend the Western Grain Stabilization Act in consequence thereof, be read the third time and do pass.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, last evening during second reading I said the official opposition supports Bill C-34 on the grounds that it attempts to meet what the farmers of western Canada demand, and we want to give it a chance to work.
There has been a long debate in western Canada about the respective merits of compulsory and voluntary pooling. As I said last night, the great majority of the farmers, in my judgment, supported the concept of compulsory pooling for their main crop-wheat. But they had a great reluctance to go into compulsory pooling for all crops, both the export and the domestically consumed crops.
[DOT] (UIO)
There is a growing fear in western Canada about the continual encroachment of the rights of individual farmers to control their own destinies. Even though they are promised higher returns and are given the freedom to make their own decisions, they know instinctively they are losing something which is even more valuable than money. Therefore in this particular bill in which the minister proposes to allow the commercial companies, some of which are owned privately and some of which are owned co-operatively, to set up voluntary pools to which they can invite their clients to join on a contractual basis, supported by the discipline of the permit book as far as the contract is concerned, there is also assistance by the government in supporting up to 90 per cent the financial risk of the initial payment.
As I mentioned last night there is still a gap, which is the financial risk that the private enterprise companies, which pioneered the development of the rapeseed market around the world, and the co-operative companies will have to face. This financial risk is during the selling period of the crop year. There could be a decline in prices that would cause serious
financial jeopardy to the management or the company administering the pool. There could be a slowing down of markets, which would leave these companies with large amounts of rapeseed on contract for which they would have to pay storage charges and for which they would have to pay interest if money was borrowed for the holding of that grain.
These legitimate risks of private enterprise terrify many people. As I said last night, this terror goes back to the grim experience of 1929, 1930, and 1931 when the newly founded co-operatively owned pools went bankrupt because of the amount of the initial payment. The provincial governments of the prairies made loans to them, and eventually they went bankrupt. It was the federal government, under R. B. Bennett, which stepped in and backed up those loans which saved those pools.
The fear of having lost something for which they had fought so long brought such a deep fear into the hearts and minds of these people that never since that day have they done their primary duty, which is to sell western Canadian grain. They hold licences to sell grain on the Canadian Wheat Board but they never use them. Some of us have tried for years to get them to combine the four pools-the Alberta Pool, the Saskatchewan Pool, the Manitoba Pool, and the UGG which runs across the three provinces. We tried to get them to combine their economic strength and form one export company, which they did after a great deal of debate, called EXCAN. The essential fact which faces us is that, generally speaking, Canadian grain from western Canada saves the value of our dollar because of the tremendous export from western Canada into the hungry world, as the hon. member for Yorkton-Mel-ville (Mr. Nystrom) pointed out yesterday. This is something which affects the whole country. The grain business is now facing up to this great fear.
In the last 45 years nearly all the grain produced in western Canada has been sold by four big international companies. The names are well known-Dreyfus from France, Bunge from Argentina, Continental and Cargill from the United States. These giant international selling companies sell most of the grain in the world. Each of them has approximately 10,000 agents all over the world competing with each other for markets. On the basis of cost, they do a remarkable job for the western farmer.
Having said that, it is a matter of national chagrin and shame that we do not have Canadians out selling Canadian grain. There are exceptions, of course. One of them is Charlie Schwartz, who is worthy of mention. He has fought with all his heart to sell a few million bushels of Canadian grain. However, the facts are very simple. When you are selling grain, you are in a multi-billion dollar business. Even to get

June 14, 1977
Canadian Wheat Board Act
into the poker game, one has to buy ten million bushels, which is small, and it requires assets of at least $50 million to get into the game. When I was the minister, I recommended that these four giant pools should pool their resources and get into this poker game. If you are successful, the amount of money you get per bushel is minimal. The competition at the selling end is very intense.
The fact remains that we do not have any large, successful grain companies owned by Canadians and operated in the interests of Canadian farmers, selling our grain around the world. We have no Canadian company going out and pioneering new markets because of that awful fear of 47 years ago when they went bankrupt because of the selling business. Just like an old lady's fear, they never forget. As the younger people have come up through these farm organizations, they are taught from the minute they step into these pools the horrible lesson which was learned in 1929, 1930, and 1931, that if you get into this grain selling business you can lose everything in a matter of months. Therefore this bill we are talking about is an effort to encourage Canadian companies, whether they are privately owned or co-operatively owned, to get into this business of selling grain, even if it is just one product, rapeseed.
The rapeseed crop, using a round figure of 100 million bushels at a price of $5, is a $500 million product which has to be sold. You pay the farmer the initial payment, which has to be borrowed. If the initial payment is $2, that means $200 million has to be borrowed if all that grain is pooled. Until that grain is sold to get the $200 million back, you are in debt on the initial payment, plus the interest which has accumulated during the interim period. I mention all these things because they are common knowledge in western Canada, but they are not common knowledge here in the House.
In this bill the minister has put the Canadian government and the Canadian taxpayer behind these pooling operations to the extent of 90 per cent of the initial payment. That has to be a sound approach. Otherwise I cannot see these Canadian companies going into the selling business. At least now they are protected on initial payment guarantees. On the second stage the risk is still tremendous.
Last night the minister was asked if he thought a large number of people would go into the pooling. He very carefully gave the correct answer, that he thought a large number of people wanted to, but the people who are going to administer and run these companies were the ones who would be reluctant to move in on the basis of the great fear of what happened in the past. Therefore the story I put on record last night and again today should be considered as background against which the House would be well advised to support this legislation.
This legislation tries to meet the political feelings of Western Canada among those who want an average price. It tries to help out that group by putting government support behind the initial payment, by incorporating the discipline of the contract and the permit book as an encouragement to voluntary pools to

get started and embark on the dangerous business of selling grain. I myself have a feeling that when they do get started they will make a success of it and wish to expand. I hope they will make a start upon the basis of this new incentive and go out selling Canadian wheat, barley, grain, and soybeans. If these companies pick up their courage and attack the market it may turn out to be a very successful operation.
I want to conclude by making a few comments on the speech of the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin).


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Is it worth it?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think it is. The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre seemed to be speaking very hysterically, but really he was expressing, in his own way, the deep fear which clutches at the hearts of so many westerners, particularly in the City of Regina, who are frightened to go out and compete, who do not want any risks to be taken by these companies, and who want a single board by compulsion, with the taxpayers supporting all the risk. That, to my mind, was the essence of his remarks. Really, he was expressing a socialist background.
Basically, what was getting to him, what was making him so irrational last night, was that he knew his friends in high places in these grain companies are terrified to go out and compete with each other in world markets. I know he made personal references to me, the worst thing he could say about me in western Canada was that I was supporting the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. A terrible thing! He knows that the worst thing an hon. member can say about another hon. member in western Canada is that he is a friend of the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. The fact is that as an opposition we recognize good legislation, legislation which is necessary not only for the immediate satisfaction of the desires of both those who want pooling and those who want cash, and it gives us an opportunity to get a Canadian company selling. Hopefully this endeavour will benefit the handling of major products, including wheat and corn. In these circumstances I take the risk of associating myself with the minister, because this is good legislation and, dash it all, if I am afraid of taking a risk by supporting good legislation, I am not serving the people as I should.
I do not know whether the legislation will work, nor does the minister or anyone else. But I think the minister has given it a good college try and made the machinery available. The challenge is now before the companies which handle rapeseed, to go out and sell. This is the only way they can hold their customers. If they go out and sell, and do their duty under the private enterprise system, they may very well be rewarded by a good return for their efforts. Above all, they will be helping not only the people of Canada but a world which needs our products.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I too want to say a few words on third reading of the bill before us today. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) mentioned the importance of grain and oil
June 14, 1977

seeds throughout the world. 1 cannot help but underline that too, when contributing to a debate about grain or oil seeds of any sort.
I think I said last night that Canada's contribution accounts for up to 25 per cent of the world's wheat export market-we usually range between 17 and 25 per cent of it, depending upon production in this country as well as in other parts of the world, even though we only produce 11 or 12 per cent of the world's wheat, consuming only a small part here and exporting the major part. We are, therefore, a major exporter of grain as well as of oil seeds, making them a very important factor in our economy.
I also said in the House yesterday that if it were not for grain and oil seeds, this country would already be a net importer of food; we would not be self-sufficient in the production of food for our own use, despite the vast acreage we have in Canada.
I had a chance to go over some government figures for last year and they showed that if you take away grain and oil seeds we would have a net deficit of $1.5 billion for food. If you take the figures released by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Abbott) last Friday in the food strategy paper, we find that the deficit has increased over the last few months to about $1.9 billion. We would not be able to feed ourselves in this country were it nor for grain and oil seeds. That, Mr. Speaker, is why this debate is so important. It is important in terms of our balance of trade and in terms of supporting the Canadian dollar; it is important in terms of the type of food we produce and the manner in which we utilize the land acreage we have.
I want to remind the House, and particularly members from urban Canada, that this deficit is likely to grow. If we do nothing about reversing the trend in this country by setting aside land for the production of food, fostering our agricultural economy and becoming self-sufficient in more crops, then probably around the year 2,000, as the Science Council of Canada says, even with grain and with oil seeds we in Canada will not be able to feed ourselves. That is really a sad state of affairs.
We are already drifting in this country in the matter of food and agricultural policies. This is the point we must make as often as we can, from one part of the country to the other, until we can get the majority of the people, the government and the public service, to realize the situation, and draft a food policy which will plan the industry so that it will work for the benefit of all Canadians, including the farmers who produce the food.
The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain mentioned the big four in terms of the world grain trade-Bunge, Dreyfus, Cargill, and Continental. He also mentioned the fact that there isn't any great Canadian trader. He said something about the economics of international grain trade-I think these are things we should talk about in this debate. I know that my philosophy is different from his when it comes to how grain should be marketed and produced. He accused the hon.
Canadian Wheat Board Act
member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) of being a socialist. I personally hope that the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre is a socialist-if he is not then he belongs to the wrong party! I am a socialist myself and that is why I believe that individual producers have more freedom if they band together to market their grain through a grains board or through a wheat board.
What freedom is there for the little guy out there producing a crop if he has to depend on the futures market or on the Winnipeg Grain Exchange? I do not consider that to be freedom. It may be freedom for some of the big guys who can afford to gamble and take their losses, but it is certainly not freedom for the ordinary person in my constituency.
In my constituency we just came through a by-election last Wednesday. The Liberal campaign was based on freedom for people, freedom for farmers to make choices, the freedom of the individual. When the results came in, the NDP received almost 50 per cent of the votes; the Conservative party did not even get 30 per cent; and the Liberal party lost its deposit.


An hon. Member:: That was because Otto was out there.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: All the Conservative party got were Liberal votes-it was one free enterprise party voting for the other. It does not make much difference whether it is the Conservative party or the Liberal party that is in opposition. Maybe the only reason the Liberal party lost votes is that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) went out to campaign for them while the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) stayed home. That campaign, according to both the other parties, was based on individual freedom, and the farmers in my riding responded decisively with 48.4 per cent of the vote in the by-election, voting for the government party, the NDP. In a by-election voters usually take the opportunity to protest, so I am confident in a general election this party would do a lot better.
[DOT] (mo)
That is why I put forth the argument that all grains in this country should be marketed through the sole jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board where all farmers participate, pooling their risks and profits, working and co-operating together. That is the way to help the ordinary farmer and keep him on the land.
If that is a good idea for wheat, why is it not a good idea for some of the other grains? I do not hear many Conservatives or Liberals talking about getting rid of the Wheat Board. Some start picking away at the edges of the Canadian Wheat Board. It was the Conservative party that set it up, but that was after a great deal of pressure from all kinds of groups across the prairies. At one time there was a wheat board, but it was abolished in 1922, and then a voluntary wheat pool was set up in the place of the Canadian Wheat Board. The wheat pool which was set up on a voluntary basis was established in 1923 and fell apart in 1931. I think that was good evidence that voluntary pools do not work. This country has a history of voluntary pools not working at all.
6628

June 14, 1977
Canadian Wheat Board Act
I should remind the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Cadieu) that in 1921, the year after the wheat board was abolished in the first place and the futures market reinstated in this country, the average price of grain went down by some 85 cents per bushel, a drop of 34 per cent over the previous year. That is the history, and we should learn from it.
On the open market the farmer is subject to the ups and downs of things he cannot control. He cannot control the climate that affects the crops in his own country or around the world, but there is one thing he can protect himself against and that is the speculators and grain traders in his own country. He can protect himself against those who gamble with the rapeseed, the flax, the rye and the other things in the open market, like dice in a casino in Las Vegas.
Why do we not market all grains through the Canadian Wheat Board in a collective sense in this country so that all farmers could reap the benefits of any windfall gains there may be and share in any losses there may be, so that there is no middle man, no speculator or grain trader making a few million dollars from the sweat on the brow of the farmer? I think all the profit from grain in this country should go back to the farmer and back to the companies that he owns, such as the wheat pools, and not to the private grains exchange. That is not free entreprise, Mr. Speaker. I think if all grains were marketed through the Wheat Board that would be real freedom.
We have heard Conservatives in this debate say, "What the NDP is talking about is taking away your freedom. Here is a voluntary pool. That is real freedom for farmers." But there are parts of that pool that are not real freedom for the farmer-he can opt into the pool but he cannot opt out. If the Conservative party were really concerned about freedom they would want to amend this bill so that the farmer could opt in or could opt out. That would be consistent. As it is, once he opts in he cannot opt out-he is stuck there for better or worse. The history of pools in this country has shown it to be for worse.
Several little pools may be set up, none with real bargaining power, and many set up by private companies-maybe Cargill is one of them-that are not interested in returning the profits to the farmer but are interested in using the profits for their own ends. Many of them are set up with that objective. There may also be people who are bootlegging outside those pools, and that is a difficult thing to control when there are small pools with some people in and some people out and it is not known who is in and who is out. It is a very complicated system, Mr. Speaker.
As the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre pointed out last night, we should stick with one side or the other. We should either be free enterprisers and do everything through the open market, or come to our senses and do everything through the grains board by expanding the Canadian Wheat Board. I am sure the majority of people in my riding would like to see it done that way. I know that a plebiscite was held four years ago and the result was a decision to market rapeseed through the Canadian Wheat Board. At that time 54
[Mr. Nystrom.J
per cent of the people voted to do this and 46 per cent voted against it. I think attitudes have changed since that time, although I know even then the people in my constituency voted overwhelmingly to market their product through the Canadian Wheat Board. I am here to represent their interest and, in my opinion, that is the best way to market grain in this country so that the profits and risks are shared by all the people involved.
Yesterday I spoke about the rapid fluctuation in the price of rapeseed in Canada over the last few years. It has gone up and down by dozens of cents per bushel from one week to the other, or one month to the other. That is because of speculation on the futures market. If rapeseed came under a grains board as wheat does, there would not be that constant fluctuation in price; there would be stability. In March or February there would be stability in pricing. The farmer would not have to be concerned about when to sell his product because the price would be relatively the same throughout the year. On the open market, however, he may get a dollar per bushel more for rapeseed in March than in October.
That is the problem my grandfather used to speak about when he was producing wheat. Before the Wheat Board was established he would take his grain to the elevator in the fall and the speculators, the grain exchange and the Richardson security people in Winnipeg, all knew there would be a great influx of wheat. So in the old free enterprise economy when there was an over-supply the price would drop, and my grandfather and his friends would get just a few cents per bushel for the wheat they hauled to the elevator by horse and wagon in the fall.
The wagons were lined up to the country elevator, with one farmer competing against the other. That was rich competition; they got 20 or 30 cents per bushel-the free enterprise system at its so-called best. It was the speculator who made the killing in those days, buying grain at a low price and selling it high later in the year. After the small farmers like my grandfather had sold their grain in the fall in order to buy clothes for their children and pay taxes, they would not have any grain to sell in the wintertime or in the spring. But the large operator would have grain for sale at three or four times the price going in the fall. And the speculator would have grain to sell and make a windfall, but not the ordinary farmer.
Now, Mr. Speaker, thanks to sanity, we have the Canadian Wheat Board which has thrown that old so-called pure free enterprise idea out the window, thank goodness. In the fall when the small farmer takes his crop to the elevator he gets the same price as if he sold it in March. There are no speculators there, with dirty hands and sticky fingers, taking money from the farmers. The small farmer has been getting initial payments for his grain and then, at the end of the crop year, his final payment. That final payment is really the difference between what he got in the beginning and what it was sold for by the Canadian Wheat Board. It represents the profit or surplus which, but for the Canadian Wheat Board, would never be his.
June 14, 1977

I argue that we should market other grains as we market wheat. That would be better for the ordinary farmer and better for the country; let us plan our economy and plan our food production. We could produce more food and, with a planned economy, prosper more. Mr. Speaker, we do not believe in a few private enterprisers, a few of the big boys, skimming off the cream. I don't care if a few of the big guys on the Winnipeg Grain Exchange go broke. I do not represent them. I represent the ordinary grain producers of my riding, and overwhelmingly they want grain marketed in an orderly manner.
The farmer wants to market his grain through the Canadian Wheat Board, or collectively, and so reap the profits of his labour. Things are tough enough as it is for the farmer. He gambles on the weather, on international markets and international prices. Why he should need to gamble on the speculators I do not know. The farmer needs guarantees. If he is unemployed, he collects no unemployment insurance; if he hurts his foot in a grain machine, he collects no workmen's compensation. The farmer has no pension. His wife works on the farm. Apart from his farm income, usually he has no other income or salary. Many of the social benefits accruing to most Canadians do not accrue to farmers. Why should we make life more uncertain for the farmer by making him market his grain on the open market? It makes no sense for this country's farmers, or for the country itself.
I now come to my final point. Some say, "Let us market grain on the open market; let us have voluntary pools. That is a free enterprise idea which will allow the farmers to exercise all kinds of initiative and freedom." Mr. Speaker, our free enterprisers want guarantees as well as freedom. They want the government to guarantee 90 per cent of the initial price. They do not mind being free enterprisers and gamblers, if there is a guarantee; they do not mind being in the ball game, if they cannot lose. Surely they are dishonest and hypocritical. That is not old fashioned free enterprise.
This scheme would make old fashioned free enterprisers roll over in their graves. The scheme is nothing but socialized or subsidized free enterprise, state-free enterprise with guarantees. But that is the game the free enterprise boys like to play. For example, a few years ago our cattlemen and ranchers said, "We want no government interference, we are free enterprisers." Then, when the bottom fell out of the cattle market, the cattlemen came running to the government with their hands out saying, "Help us."
One year the cattlemen want no government interference; the next year the story is different. When the market turned down they ran to the government, asking for subsidies. Mr. Speaker, they cannot have their cake and eat it. For these reasons I am a socialist, in the NDP. I hear the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) chuckling. I know he is a socialist as well.


Mr. Mazankowski:: What a joke!
Canadian Wheat Board Act


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I know he really is, because he did not shed tears when that biggest enterpriser, the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner), joined the Liberal party.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I had better stop laughing. I am helping you with your speech.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I know this bill will pass, and we shall see voluntary pooling. Probably it will be no great disaster for the ordinary farmer, because he will not participate. I know the wheat pools will not get involved; not even Cargill need be involved. Perhaps these pools will work, but my guess is they will not. They have not worked in the past and it is unlikely they will work in future. Hopefully we will learn from this lesson and, when the next generation of parliamentarians finally comes to its senses, it will do the sensible thing, make sure grain is marketed in an orderly way under the auspices of a board like the Canadian Wheat Board, so that we can plan our economy properly and decently.


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to participate in this debate. However, having heard the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) presenting his viewpoint on freedom of choice, the private enterprise system and socialism, I feel impelled to enter it. I cannot let his statements go unchallenged. You know, a bright young man who entered politics immediately after leaving university and who was never associated with farming should not hold himself out as an instant expert on agriculture. His speech was full of holes and wrong statements.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It was fluff.


Jack Burnett Murta: Many of his statements were totally wrong. Really, when we debate third reading of this bill we are debating, as that hon. member, and the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) suggested, freedom of choice. We want to preserve it; obviously the NDP does not. It wants the farmers to have only one choice, the NDP's choice. The NDP presumably would make the rules for the system and farmers would be forced to obey. That is not freedom of choice.
Most farmers think the Canadian Wheat Board is doing a good job of selling. We agree. It has made some innovations since I first appeared on the political scene. In the early 1970's it encountered marketing problems. It overcame those and, under a series of innovated measures, sold to the private trade; in other words, sold wherever it could. It saw world prices were lower and stocks building up. Farmers in western Canada overwhelmingly support the Wheat Board. It serves us well at present, but may not be adequate in the 1980's. Of course, farmers are given the option of selling to the private trade for instant cash, if they want it. They have that advantage. Really, when you come down to it, that is the crux of the question; freedom of choice.
[DOT] (M50)
I have some concerns about Bill C-34 because of the fact that although the opting in provisions are there, the opting out
80018 -18 (4

June 14, 1977
Canadian Wheat Board Act
provisions are not there. Of course a pooling system would not work if people were allowed to opt in or out on a yearly basis. I am a little concerned that we may see at some point in time, ten or 15 years from now, rapeseed totally under the authority of the pooling system or totally under the Canadian Wheat Board, and 1 do not think that would be the right direction to take.
The main concern I have about the bill is that it opens the door, however slightly, to a total marketing board concept. But be that as it may, at present what we have is, in my opinion, true freedom of choice. If I want to market my grain on the open market or through the Canadian Wheat Board, 1 can do that. The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), if he were a farmer, could do that same thing. He could market through the Canadian Wheat Board if he so wanted. It is not going to hurt either one of us. That is the point that is missed so often by the socialists when they talk about free enterprise versus socialism, about freedom of choice being really one freedom, that is, the freedom of marketing in one particular way.
In my opinion we have the best of both worlds so far as the marketing system at present is concerned. In many respects it is better than the American marketing system. I do not think Canadians will ever get into the grains selling system that the Americans have with their three or four multinational corporations which sell grain on a world-wide basis because, frankly, we do not have the resources; it is too expensive a game for us to play. But I certainly feel that with the Wheat Board operating the way it is and having a parallel system which allows me personally, or anyone else, to sell in a different manner if we so wish, that is the kind of system that we in the House should strive to preserve with every piece of legislation we bring in because in my opinion-and I know this opinion is shared by a good many farmers across western Canada-that is the kind of system that will bring us the maximum benefit so far as grains and oil seeds which we sell in Canada are concerned.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Paproski:: Here is another CPR farmer. He farms on CPR right of ways.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: -I want to say a few words on third reading of this bill and to tell my friend, the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski), that as a CPR man-my father was one as well-I was born, lived, and raised and saw at first hand how farmers were treated by his free enterprise system and by the CPR. I worked on a section for a few weeks one summer.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Have you learned to speak Ukrainian?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I did not learn how to speak Ukrainian, and that was a mistake I made. The issue here is pretty clear, I think. My colleague, the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), and I have advocated that the best way for grain producers in Canada to compete on the world market is

to co-operate and do it together; that a small percentage, or even a significant percentage of rapeseed producers in a voluntary pool would not count for very much faced with dealing with governments of other countries or in competition with the four or five big multinational grain trading corporations, because they would not have sufficient muscle. A voluntary pool, even operated by two or three grain companies, which took in even the majority of our rapeseed producers would still not be big enough to count.
The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) regretted that Canada does not have a large grain trader of the size of the big four. I want to dispute that; we do have a large grain-trader in the world markets that has some muscle. It is called the Canadian Wheat Board. It has the backing of the overwhelming majority of grain producers in western Canada and, more important than that, it has the backing of the people of Canada, of this parliament, and of the government. In other words, the resources of this nation are behind the Wheat Board if ever needed. This gives us a grain trader that has the size and the muscle to count in world markets.
This bill makes provision for rapeseed. Canada's share in the market, so far as oil seed production is concerned, is minuscule-it is somewhere around 7 per cent-because we must compete with other oil seeds such as soybeans, peanuts, sunflower and cocoanut oil, and whatever amount of rapeseed we are going to export, or any other oil seed, requires a large, competent organization that has trading and financial muscle to compete in world markets. To suggest that a small percentage, or even a large percentage, of rapeseed growers in a pool with one or more grain companies can do that, I submit, is just dreaming.
We already have a large grain trader. The best way in which grain producers in western Canada can get the maximum value from their production is in a co-operative system of orderly marketing through the Canadian Wheat Board. In fact it is the feeling, certainly in the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, in the National Farmers' Union and, I suspect, also in the Alberta and Manitoba pools, that since they already have an organization capable of doing that kind of marketing, we should not duplicate it by setting up additional pooling arrangements, voluntary or otherwise.
The Canadian Wheat Board has the expertise and the experience. It has offices all around the world. It is close to the farmers, it is accountable to the grain producers, to parliament, and to the government. The grain producers' interests are fully protected and guarded in many ways, and the grain producers in western Canada have said repeatedly for 40 or 50 years that they have exercised the freedom of choice that the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) speaks about, which is orderly marketing through the Canadian Wheat Board. It is the logical, obvious, and proper vehicle through which to market all the grains produced in western Canada. I would even suggest that its name be changed to the Canadian grains board so that it would reflect more properly its duties and its terms of reference.
June 14, 1977

The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville has illustrated our position on this matter extremely well. I want to remind the hon. member for Lisgar that the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville is a third generation farmer. He was born and raised on a farm. I do not want to hear any inferences or innuendoes that somehow or other he does not have a farming background or does not know anything about farming. He can speak with authority on the matter because he has that background on both sides of his family, and has had it for three generations. He has also been in sufficient touch with grain producers in his own riding-as I would like to think I have to reflect the views of those people. As he said, the views we are reflecting are not those of 10, 20, or 30 section farmers. I am not particularly interested in them. As far as I am concerned they are just greedy. However, the fellow who farms a section or two sections-that is the size of farm that the majority of farmers in western Canada have-has to have the protection of the Canadian Wheat Board and orderly marketing.
To suggest that a farmer on his own as a so-called independent free enterpriser on the open free market can compete with multi-million dollar corporations is just sheer nonsense. Grain producers learned that bitter lesson repeatedly over a period of about 40 years, and they said "no more". I wish that the government and the official opposition would stop clinging to these 19th century mythologies about free enterprise and the free and open market in such an essential commodity as grain. It does not work for grain producers. It might work fine for Cargill, Bunge or Continental, but it does not work for grain producers. It never has. It is not there to work for grain producers. That system is there to make profits for others but not for farmers.
The Canadian Wheat Board is there to maximize returns for farmers, not for the Canadian Wheat Board or for the Canadian government.
That is the essential difference between the two systems, and I submit that orderly marketing is the only sane or sensible way in which to operate. It is not some kind of a socialist dogma. The majority of grain producers of all political beliefs fully support orderly marketing and the Canadian Wheat Board.
I think this kind of legislation keeps the door open for the so-called free marketers. It allows them to keep their foot in the door, to survive and to make a few dollars. On the world scene those few dollars will not matter very much, considering the amounts these companies make in other countries, particularly in the United States. Those multi-national grain corporations have not only made profits off the backs of grain producers; they have also victimized the consumer in many instances.
When one reads the court records and learns of the investigations which have been carried on with regard to these multi-national grain corporations over many decades, he finds that the consumer has been victimized. These companies were around in the 1880's and 1890's. Grain producers in western
Canadian Wheat Board Act
Canada got rid of most of them during the thirties, forties and fifties, but now they are sneaking in the back door, with the encouragement and support of the old-line parties which still think there is some validity to their 19th century beliefs about the free and open market.
I hope that there will be a relenting and a change of heart, at least on the part of the official opposition, but I am not optimistic. I am sure hon. members to my right will allow this bill to be read the third time, and in a way that is very sad.
I regret accusing the hon. member for Qu Appelle-Moose Mountain of supporting the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board because that is a terrible thing to say, and I did not really mean it. That is the worst thing anybody from anywhere between Thunder Bay and the Rocky Mountains could say, so I will take that back, but I feel very sad that the hon. member and his colleagues would - be party to the strengthening of the so-called free open market system and to providing government guarantees for a system which is supposed to be free and open and operating without government intervention. I find that inconsistent and hypocritical. It is a sad thing that they would still cling to those ideas. Perhaps as the years go by they will gradually realize that there are some areas of human endeavour in which the so-called private free enterprise system has no place and does not work in the interest of the people. Surely this grain business is one in which the so-called free and open market system has no place.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: In my opinion the yeas have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

June 14, 1977
Canada Lands Surveys Act


CANADA LANDS SURVEYS ACT
Otto Emil Lang: that Bill C-4, to amend the Canada Lands Surveys Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-4 which I have the honour to introduce provides amendments to the Canada Lands Surveys Act which will make it possible to control and manage more effectively the survey of public lands in Canada. Those lands, according to the definition given in the Canada Lands Surveys Act, in its present form, mean "any lands, belonging to Her Majesty in right of Canada or of which the government of Canada has power to dispose, that are situated in the Yukon Territory, the Northwest Territories or in National Parks of Canada and any lands that are surrendered lands or reserves as defined in the Indian Act".
The present legislation on the survey of Canadian land also provides for the appointment of a Board of Examiners which will look into all matters concerning the examination, admittance and qualifications of the candidates to a commission of Dominion land surveyor or to a certificate of Dominion topographical surveyors.

The Canada Lands Surveys Act, which came into effect in January, 1952, replaced the former Dominion Lands Surveys Act. It has been amended twice since then, once in 1956 and again in 1966. As a result of increasing exploration in Canada's offshore areas and rapid technological advances in surveying techniques, particularly in the last few years, it is felt that changes in the act are needed.
The application of the act should be extended in order to bring the legal surveys required for the management and control of offshore resources under legislative authority and to facilitate better the administration, direction and control of surveys of all Canada lands. Accordingly, the term "public lands" has been deleted from the act and has been replaced by the term "Canada lands", which is broader in scope and more appropriate with respect to the new legislation. In addition, there is a need to re-define the professional standards of Dominion land surveyors, appropriate to the new era that has been opened up by rapid technological advances.
The revised standards should be comprehensive enough to embrace all persons engaged in surveying, whether on land, over or under water-mainly the offshore environment-or from the air, including the use of satellites, as well as in the interpretation, processing and display of resulting data. There is also a need for revision of educational and apprenticeship requirements in relation to the methods of qualifying surveyors of Canada lands and for an expanded board of examiners,
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier).]
designed to administer effectively what is, in essence, a public trust.

Mr. Speaker, one of the main objectives of these amendments is precisely to bring under the administration of this legislation the official surveys made in off-shore areas, as is the case for lands situated in the Yukon Territory, the Northwest Territories, Indian reserves, surrendered lands and national parks. Current regulations on oil and gas lands in Canada provide that only a federal surveyor may carry out an official survey of Canada lands in the sense intended by the regulation. The department intends to apply the provisions of the Canada Lands Surveys Act to all official off-shore surveys and to the specification of standards related to these surveys.
Another objective is to give to Yukon and Northwest Territories commissioners the power to undertake surveys of Canada lands they are administering in their respective territory. At the present time, the legislation empowers the ministers responsible for the administration of land in Canada to request the surveying of that land, but since the administration of the pieces of land that encompass territorial communities has been transferred to the commissioners in council, that power should also be extended to the commissioners.
A third objective is to repeal the sections requiring that Canada lands be laid out in quadrilateral townships, except where otherwise directed by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. That system, which was initially devised for the subdivision of lands in the Prairie provinces, is not applicable for it provides for the establishment of a rectangular system of reserves so that roads, whether they be north-south or east-west oriented, may be equidistant. It is obvious that such a system is not practical in mountainous or uneven regions, as exist in the Yukon and Northwest Territories, and in practically all national parks and in several Indian reserves. Moreover, the repeal of those sections would make it unnecessary to amend the act following metric conversion.
As to the need to redefine the professional standards of federal lands surveyor, we could improve the quality of land surveys in Canada by making sure that surveyors are better qualified and fully conversant with the surveying methods which apply to off-shore areas. It would also be desirable to convey a new title to surveyors, that of Canada Lands Surveyor, to replace and supersede the previous title of federal surveyor or Federal topographer. It would also be desirable to gather under this designation all professionals who meet the requirements of land surveying in Canada, because in this era, conditions keep on changing, no matter whether these professionals operate on land, on sea, on the ocean floor or in the air. This new title stems from the new definition of "Canada Lands" which appears in the act.
The bill proposes to increase the number of members on the Board of Examiners from three to five, four of them being
June 14, 1977

persons having training and practical experience in the major fields of surveying.
Mr. Speaker, we feel that the proposed amendments are likely to improve the quality of land surveying in Canada. Moreover, a number of very minor amendments which are desirable are included in this bill.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, on the surface this appears to be a housekeeping measure to set up machinery for a modern system of surveys suitable for our northern and offshore lands. However, on reading through the legislation it becomes obvious that this is more than a housekeeping bill. There is a political operation going on here reflecting the government's determination to do away with the nomenclature we traditionally use to describe our country.
This country is still, legally, the Dominion of Canada, and traditionally we call the survey the Dominion Land Survey. The main object of this bill, and everywhere where that phrase is used, is to get rid of the word Dominion and replace it by Canada. And the phrase "Dominion lands" is replaced by "Canada lands". Looking around this country today, we find alienation from the government, alienation between the regions, alienation between groups. Surely we are in enough trouble. But here we find just one more exacerbation of the alienation to which I have referred. I cannot understand what possible good the government is doing by yielding to ^a few extremists who want to get rid of the word "Dominion . The word "Dominion" was decided upon at the time of the formation of our nation by people of many ethnic origins. They were to have dominion over this land from sea to sea. Yet here we find this squirreling going on.
The proposal to set up a survey system suitable for the north will arouse no great excitement among our people. But carrying into a housekeeping act this additional needle, adding to the tension which already exists in the country, is not sound, especially at a time when we should be working toward national unity, not disunity. I have to point this out loud and clear-and if my right hon. friend from Prince Albert were here he would make the point more forcefully than that.
The next point I wish to make concerns the handling of affairs in the territorial areas. If we look at the legislation which gives statutory powers to the minister in charge of the north we find he has all the powers of a czar. Any conscientious minister aware of this great power in his hands must worry a great deal about its exercise. I had it for three years and I must say it worried me. Every week scores of forms passed across my desk for me to sign, affecting the livelihood and security of people in the north about whose affairs I had no knowledge. Nor was it possible to gain personal knowledge of what was involved, since no minister can regularly fly 4,000 miles here and 4,000 there. He has to accept the words of his officials.
Canada Lands Surveys Act
In 1963, when the government changed, the late Arthur Laing became minister. He decided to delegate this part of the work load to a number of senior officials across the north-a huge region. Knowing his sincerity, I asked him in the House whether he would make certain that the officials to whom he had delegated this power understood the significance of this completely dictatorial authority. Let me give the House an example of what I have in mind.
When you look at a map of the Yukon it becomes apparent that there is a vast unsurveyed area. In accordance with our concept of law, no one owns it. When land was granted to people in that area, every single acre had to be approved by the minister. Under Mr. Laing, that authority was transferred to five or six senior officials. Let hon. members read the legislation before them. That power still resides with the minister here. Any Privy Councillor, not only the minister directly responsible, can order the officials to conduct a survey. In addition, the commissioner can so order.
To get back to what I was saying: you see this vast area which does not belong to anyone-it is public land-and you approve a survey and give ownership of title. But suppose that in this vast area there are groups of native people, Indians here and Eskimos there, who use this land as a place to settle down during the seasons of the year when they are not travelling. When you find out months or years later that you have allowed a document to go through your hands, and you have allowed surveyors to go in and survey a piece of land and give ownership to a person, and you did not even realize the ownership you were turning over on a blank sheet of paper happened to be the traditional wintering grounds of 200 or 300 families of loyal Canadian citizens, that is what I mean by the danger which is not mentioned in this legislation.
In this legislation we have applied all the dictatorial rules which we applied to the citizens of the south, that if the government has directed that a piece of land be surveyed, any person is punished if he stops that survey. You can cross a person's land in southern Canada, and if any effort is made to hinder the surveyor, that person is the one who is guilty. They have applied this type of southern culture to the north.
Officials think the north is such a huge place that rarely will there be cases of infringement on native habits and customs. The fact is that it has been happening for all the years I can remember. Under this legislation you give statutory power, as if these native people are the same as those of us who are domesticated down here in the southern part of the country where we are used to taking orders from governments. These people have no legal claim to the land, under our law. They have just a moral right to it. They keep moving around and are not happy with a fixed boundary. Therefore I should point out to the minister and to the government that this housekeeping legislation has inherent in it great power to harm innocent people and a great ability to break a moral custom or a moral right that these people have to access and use of this land. We

June 14, 1977
Canada Lands Surveys Act
are used to the fact that you put a wall or a fence around your property and say, "That is mine", but they are not.
I am aware of various groups which have been formed to put forward the rights of the native people. These rights have not been accepted under our law yet, although an agreement has been made. This problem of human relations between the mass of the Canadian people and these few thousand Indians up there is ignored in this legislation. This is looked on as purely a question of improving the survey system, and purely a question of getting the machinery to act efficiently.
We forget the lessons of our history when we move in and attack the culture of people. For example, when we moved in and attacked the culture of the Metis who lived along the Red River and the Assiniboine in Manitoba, the result was a rebellion in 1870. Every time you monkey around with a person's land or his culture, you get into trouble. I do not see any awareness in this legislation that there is any question of asking permission before you walk across a man's land to survey. It just provides that you have the right and the man will be punished if he interferes in any way. The only answer to this problem is for us in this parliament to trust the humanitarianism and the fair play of the minister and the commissioners of these various territories. That is all we have to protect us.
Under this legislation we are giving a tremendous dictatorial power, to public servants in most cases, but let us call them surveyors, and taking it away from the minister. It has to be done with some sort of a survey system. Referring to the question of commissioners, I would think that has to be supported. It has always struck me as very wrong that a minister in Ottawa has this power over 60 per cent of the land mass of this country. The power includes the bottom of the sea, the Arctic, the Pacific and the Atlantic half way across the ocean, which is probably three or four times more area than we have in the land mass. All this tremendous power under our legislation is now concentrated in the cabinet ministers here in Ottawa.
The phrase "and the commissioner" has been added over and over again in this legislation. The commissioner is the person who is responsible to Ottawa. He heads up the Yukon government and the commission which heads up the Northwest Territories. Some day I expect we will have two territories to make up the present Northwest Territories. At least we have turned over the power a little closer to the people, because the commissioners in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories have to share some of their decision-making powers with the elected council. Sharing the power which is now held by the minister or other Privy Councillors over the north, and widening that out to include the commissioners of the two territories, is an improvement. That improvement has to be supported.
The final point I should like to make is on the survey. The parliamentary secretary is quite correct when he said you cannot use the American style survey that we used in opening up the Canadian west. Because our west is reasonably rolling

and level, it was very easy for us to adopt the survey of Ohio or Pennsylvania and bring it into western Canada.
If you look at the history of surveys in western Canada, there were five different stages of surveys. Essentially they were very unique and useful to us because every mile north and south there is a road, and every two miles east and west there is a road.
As I have said in this House on many occasions, the province of Saskatchewan, where only 4 per cent of the people of Canada live, has 36 per cent to 40 per cent of the roads, and that is why we get so sensitive when somebody comes along and wants to apply a new survey system. We spent the last 100 years, or at least the last 70 years, paying for these roads on one system of survey, and then the government comes along, carrying out the orders of a few junior grade public servants, and applies a new system of survey measurements called the metric system, for no good reason. We are not selling land around the world, and yet we are asked under the laws of the province of Saskatchewan to survey in a foreign system, which means millions of dollars of cost to governments at the municipal and provincial levels. It also means hundreds of millions of dollars of cost to individuals living in towns, cities, as well as in the country. This is rammed through even on the docile, domesticated Canadians who live in the south, and they do not like it. We can take it because at least we can read and know we are being gored.
When we go into a survey system in the north, it is not just a question of adaptation to some other survey system from a country like the United States or what we have in Ontario, the maritimes or Quebec. This is a survey system which has to be developed. It is designed for the rivers of the north and is designed for the mountains of the north. Imagine how silly it would be putting in a square system where you have a valley with the tablelands on each side of that river running a few miles out, and then into mountains which go up 8,000, 10,000 or 12,000 feet. It the early days of the French colony everybody lived along the rivers and the long lines served them very well. This is not the system which will work in the north.
In the north it is essentially a question of getting a survey system that is simple to operate on a resource based economy. Whether we like it or not, with some of our current, temporary, non-growth philosophies, the north is a tremendous resource area. To picture it clearly, just think of the resources at the bottom of the sea. Fish and other things live down there.
A survey system designed for a settled area, along a river or in a mountainous river area such as there is in the northwest or the tundra of the central Arctic, would not apply to the bottom of the sea. It should be done on a grid system based on the natural curvature of the earth, such as is already in place in the Territorial Lands Act. That is how oil and gas permits are assessed and granted.
The grid system would be easy to locate because it could be numbered in such a way that to get a certain map, by a simple formula of taking the first number and second number-I am
June 14, 1977

not an expert in this-you could pull out that map. I know it is not necessary to put all the details of the type of survey in the legislation. The legislation before us simply gives the power to set up such a survey system as the minister directs and as is suitable for the north. The details come in the regulations, but sometimes when those regulations are being developed it helps to know that someone has some ideas about what makes a good survey system. If you think of a non-populated area, a terrain that is not smooth like the prairies, then it is really a question of getting a grid system which will make it easy to do the bookkeeping and indexing so that the people who work in the north know where the corners of those grids are and can measure from there.
We have made a good start in the oil lands but I know the base lines are not in place, and if there is any great quarrel over a few feet of land there could be a disaster up there. The fact remains, however, that we need a survey system based on big territory, and a simple grid system that can be easily indexed so that locations can easily be found.
I now come to the last point on this matter of the survey. I have mentioned the grid system as opposed to the linear type of measurement back from a river. We have talked about the square system that works fairly well in the prairies, except in the bush and the rolling country along the rivers in the northern prairies, but now we are moving into a new area of great immensity-I would say ten times larger than the land mass of Canada. We have to develop a system for this that is easy to locate. In the case of the underwater grid I think it will have to be done with references to base line points where, by triangulation and the use of modern radar equipment, location can be established by tuning into the signal given off by the beacon.
All this is known to the scientists who have developed this sytem in the years since World War II. We have a tremendous amount of knowledge about it which must be transmitted to the new class of surveyor who will be working in the north. That is why we have to approve this question of the schooling and discipline of those surveyors.
There is a purely political, common sense question that I should like to put to the government. Another bill is before the House on metric conversion which provides for the amendment of 90 different statutes before there can be complete conversion to the metric system at the federal level. Yet this bill before us does not seem to be aware that there is such a thing going on as metric conversion. Presumably we will have to bring this bill back in two years to be changed over to the metric system.
I simply suggest that if there is someone in the government who understands the difficulty of the government House leader in trying to get legislation through, he should tell these brilliant nitwits who draft the legislation to remember that there is another bill before us on metric conversion. In this area we are moving into the unknown-there are no cultures in the offshore areas being attacked; we are not stirring up the cultural traditions of a peasant people or anything like that, so why not agree to start out with the system that will eventually be imposed all across the country? I suppose this never crossed
Canada Lands Surveys Act
the minds of those who prepare legislation, but surely someone at the ministerial level on the legislative committee of cabinet should be able to see further than the political attractions of changing the name from "public lands" to "Canada lands" and from "Dominion land surveyor" to "Canada land surveyor," which will probably make him a better Canadian! It is stirring up disunity. Surely the legislative committee of cabinet should realize that another minister is trying to put through a metric conversion bill which only covers nine statutes and another bill will be required to cover the other 81 statutes.
Has the cabinet lost its capacity to think? Has the cabinet simply turned everything over to the genial, brilliant nitwits who came up with this? Where are the people in cabinet who think? Surely someone in cabinet must pay some attention to the ordinary, commonplace task of being a Privy Councillor?
There is nothing we can do about this situation today, but the bill will have to be amended before it is passed if the government seriously intends to bring in the metric system. I think it is time a giant firecracker was let off under the cabinet. When the government brought in a bill to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act yesterday the opposition demonstrated that it could support it because in the main it was good legislation. But it does irritate us to have to take time over a housekeeping bill when obviously the minister presenting it does not realize that another minister is trying to get the metric system accepted.
This bill discusses surveys and is a demonstration of the asinine type of thing that goes on in the government. As people say when a government is in office too long, it is time they had a rest. I think this certainly applies now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, to my mind, Bill C-4 is of very great importance. Indeed, it amends the existing act considerably. First, it proposes the repeal of the designation "Dominion" as applied to the lands of Canada in the act as it now stands. I feel that the substitution of the word "Canada" is quite normal in view of the evolution of our country.
If we go back to 1931, when the Statute of Westminster was passed we note that the word "Canada" is mentioned more often than the word "Dominion". Therefore, if we really want to assert ourselves as a people, who are proud of our country, we should everywhere, as much as possible, designate it under the name of Canada. For my part, I feel in no way offended by the proposed change. On the contrary: I am quite happy with it because in a few weeks we will be celebrating Canada Day. And so we evolve, we grow progressively. Our laws must absolutely be amended to reflect the change and use the word which should, more and more, find preference in the hearts of Canadians.
With regard to surveying, I must say that I had occasion, when I was a bit younger, to work with surveyors. I did love their work. I thought it was wonderful to accompany those

June 14, 1977
Canada Lands Surveys Act
men who knew the terrain quite well, who could draw up plans so that the owners who later would live on those sites would recognize their lands and situate them very specifically. I also has occasion to participate in some research work to locate some land which belonged to an estate but had not been surveyed, as a result of which, quarrels and a trial ensued. That cost a lot of money, precisely because the land had not been surveyed: it should have been before, but had never been. Unfortunately, the heirs to the land spent huge amounts of money trying to prove they really had title to the land.
I feel that for a Canadian who owns land it is very important that he should know where it is located and what its limits are. To my mind, it is so important that he should know it by memory. The small plot of land one lives on, one really owns, is the embryo of one's country. Bill C-4 provides more than that.
Such surveys apply to the lands under the jurisdiction of the federal government, and as the parliamentary secretary said earlier, that will add to the responsibilities of Canada lands surveyors who will be drawing boundary lines even under water; as an amendment in this regard was passed this year and as Canada has extended its territorial limit to 200 miles, it will be necessary to be clear on that point if we want to be significant. We will then be able to defend our privileges and our rights if foreign fishermen were to fish within our limit.
This legislation also amends the selection procedures of new candidates. In my opinion, this new method seems at first sight excellent, for it quite clearly determines the requirements. No one shall be disqualified, for a provision of the legislation provides that the surveyors who are presently performing their duties will not be disqualified. They will be allowed to perform their duties without being disturbed.
The main feature of this bill is that it gives a commissioner in the Northwest Territories and in the Yukon the kind of authority Parliament wants to have. 1 think this is a provision in the bill we will have to consider more particularly in committee. To be convinced about this I shall certainly have to hear extremely valid reasons because I do not agree, at this time at least, with the idea that a commissioner should enjoy powers similar to those of a minister of the Parliament of Canada. Perhaps there are reasons of which I am not aware and when I know them I may change my mind but, in any event, right now I find it is not quite correct to give a commissioner this kind of responsibility. In brief, the bill concerns a very considerable expanse of land and the subsoil may contain unknown wealth. By giving the commissioner authority to have the land surveyed without any form of control on the part of the Parliament of Canada, we would be careless, I think.
Anyway, there is another clause in the bill which worries me a little, the one providing that the minister may appoint somebody from his office. That clause reads as follows:
"Surveyor General" means a person who is a Canada Lands Surveyor and is appointed as Surveyor General in the manner authorized by law or a person authorized by the minister to carry out the duties of the Surveyor General."
[Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse).J
I am a little concerned by the fact that the minister is empowered to appoint somebody to carry out the role of the Surveyor General. That leaves the impression that it is not necessary for the appointee to be a surveyor. Here again, when we review the bill in committee I hope the parliamentary secretary or the minister will be able to give us explanations to justify that amendment to the act.
I would not like to go any further on this subject because as a whole this bill, save for the restrictions I mentioned, is a step forward. It had become necessary to bring in amendments to the legislation, to get it clearer, so that we may really identify the borders of Canada without encroaching upon the rights of the provinces. As a matter of fact, there are also surveyors who carry out their profession in areas of provincial jurisdiction. The legislation provides that those surveyors can occasionally do surveys and act as if they were surveyors under Canadian government jurisdiction. Therefore, I do not see why they might have to complain about those changes which do not alter their rights in any way but, on the contrary, add to them since they are provided with even more responsibilities and they are being recognized as a necessary occupation. I am happy for them. I am convinced that Bill C-4 will certainly pass once amended in the way I have indicated and I assume that these people will be glad to have a clear and precise piece of legislation. It will thus encourage them to do their duties and to carry out their occupation in the best interests of the public.
[DOT]	(1240)


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I am interested in two aspects of the bill, one of which has been mentioned by two of the previous speakers, namely, our relationship to the Dominion. It seems to me that we are being picayune in wanting to change the word "Dominion" to "Canada".
[DOT]	(1250)
I have no objection to our country being called Canada. I have never really objected to the word "Dominion , but I think it is very picayune and it must take the kind of mentality I see in some quarters to think that it is going to be advantageous to bring forward every piece of legislation and change the word "Dominion" to "Canada". If the government really were sincere, it would bring forward enabling legislation to establish the basis for the definition of Canada. Then it would apply that substantive legislation to all the other pieces of legislation which are affected.
I can see us bringing a bill forward with regard to the Dominion Observatory to have it changed to the Canada Observatory. I can see us bringing forward all the other pieces of legislation which use the word "Dominion". It seems to me that we should first establish a definition for Canada. We should do that in a piece of legislation calling Canada "Canada". However, we should not be playing with it. How long do the Liberals think they can take advantage of using our establishment as a Dominion for 110 years, and use it for other purposes on a perpetual basis by changing the word "Domin-
June 14, 1977

ion" wherever it occurs periodically to "Canada"? Surely we ought to have enough guts to decide what we want to do, to act in a strong and forceful way and to pass substantive legislation in one measure to change all the acts which are affected. We do this with other things; why should we not do it in this case?
In a similar vein I am concerned that we really have not done anything about the territories. We are passing this piece of legislation not only for the new territories we are obtaining in the 200-mile offshore zone, but we are also applying it to the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. We are saying that the minister is no longer directly responsible for federal services in those areas in this regard, and certainly the operation of surveying is not small, although it affects a small number of surveyors. I presume they are in this category. We should really be looking at what we are going to do about some kind of self determination for the people of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon and giving them the right to make decisions about surveyors.
Surveyors are very important. In my part of the country they have been immensely important. The parliamentary secretary said that surveying is a science. If it is a science, it is a very inexact one on many occasions. There have been multimillion dollar lawsuits over the opinion of one surveyor against the opinion of another. This has happened particularly with regard to mining claims. Fortunes have been made and lost depending on lines drawn by surveyors. We have been very fortunate to have had the surveyors we have had. Surveyors have been able to establish a very accurate accounting of the lands of this country, and I would not want to see that changed.
It may not be offensive to change the number of members of the board from three to Five, but I think we should be very careful with the training which is required and about the assurance which is given at the bottom of a deed, whether it be in the Northwest Territories or anywhere else. When a surveyor signs a deed, he has a responsibility, and the designation he gives to a particular property is important. We have been very fortunate over the years that our training of surveyors has been sufficient to ensure that a deed is accurate. I do not particularly want to see us dilute that by allowing the commissioners to have the responsibility for surveying. I am quite happy to see that responsibility remain in the hands of provincial authorities, and I think in the Northwest Territories and in the Yukon until we make the decision-and I hope it is very soon-that they will have the control of the surveyors and other government officials in their area, that control should remain the responsibility of the federal minister.
I do not want to prolong this. If the parliamentary secretary wants this bill passed before one o'clock, that is all right, but I want to point out that many people feel abused every time we go through this stupid argument about changing the word "Dominion" to the word "Canada".
If we really want to do that, let us pass legislation which will enable all other pieces of legislation to be changed by register-
Administration of Justice
ing them under the enabling legislation. That will cause fewer hassles and will probably do more to promote unity than the kind of division which always comes about when we talk about changing the word "Dominion" to the word "Canada" or "Canadian".


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I wish to inform the House that, if I recognize the parliamentary secretary at this time, he will close the debate.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Maurice Dupras: Mr. Speaker, I personally have no difficulty with the word "Dominion". I regret that in some parts of the country some people feel the way the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) and the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) described. It seems that it is still difficult for some Canadians to accept that things can be Canadian. I see no difficulty with this type of evolution whereby more and more we are trying to develop a Canadian nationalism and a Canadian identification. I feel that the word "Canada" should be used more and more.
The faculty for adaptation of some of us is better than that of others, but inevitably things will be more and more Canadian. This is our country. I am proud that our major airline is called Air Canada, and we also have a company called Canadian Pacific. After all, they are Canadian.

I have much hesitation, difficulty and impatience, Mr. Speaker, when I see that some of my fellow citizens are still reluctant to identify more and more as Canadians. Having visited all parts of my country in the last couple of years, I can see that it does not correspond so much to the feelings I have detected in Canadians of all parts of the country. In the east as in the west, Canadians tend more and more to identify as such and more and more express this feeling of nationalism which is taking so long to blossom out in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, it being one o'clock, I would like to continue after lunch.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, before I move my motion, may I say that I am somewhat

June 14, 1977
Unemployment
disappointed that both the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) and the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) are absent. I rise under the provisions of Standing Order No. 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The Minister of Justice's indifference to the established facts of international gang-rule is absolutely astonishing, and his refusal to set up a royal commission on organized crime is undeniably mistaken. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
That this House views with alarm the increase in international organized crime in Canada and directs the government to establish a royal commission on the matter with full powers to subpoena witnesses and documents to get the hard evidence to lead to charges and convictions to stamp out crime in this nation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: According to Standing Order 43, the presentation for debate of such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The May labour force survey showed that unemployment in Atlantic Canada has reached the tragically unacceptable level of 12 per cent. Unemployment in Quebec is up two full percentage points from May, 1976, to 10 per cent in May, 1977. This government's policies have increased regional disparity and cost young Canadians dearly. There are 403,000 unemployed between the ages of 15 and 24. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters):
That this House urge the government to immediately implement a policy of full employment.


Mr. Speaker:: According to Standing Order 43, the presentation of such a motion can be made only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT ACTION TO CREATE JOBS- MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing concern. In light of the fact that economic stagnation, and the failure of governments to act to solve the problems of unemployment elsewhere in the world has led to internal dissension, in light of the fact that we in Canada are faced with the double-barrelled problems of high unemployment and a separatist government in Quebec, and recognizing the desire
[Mr. Woolliams.J
of the Canadian parliament to keep Canada together, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald):
That this House urges the government to take new and immediate action to solve the unemployment crisis in Quebec and throughout this country before it is too late to save the country from the destruction which is inevitably bred by the continual failure of a national government to create a positive climate leading to more jobs.


Mr. Speaker:: Standing Order 43 requires 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.


UNEMPLOYMENT IN CAPE BRETON-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. My motion is prompted by the tragic unemployment situation existing on Cape Breton Island. In light of the announcement that there is to be a shutdown of a five-week duration at the Sydney Steel Corporation, which will add hundreds of additional unemployed to the ranks of an unemployment rate that is already the highest in the nation, and as a result of a largely attended public meeting of unemployed and others held in Sydney last night, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates):
That a team of expediters from the Department of Manpower and Immigration and officials from the Unemployment Insurance Commission be immediately dispatched to Cape Breton Island to meet with the unemployed and municipal authorities to work out at least immediate short-term proposals to provide employment, particularly in view of the telegram that was sent to the Prime Minister and government ministers stating that if this was not done within 48 hours, further and more serious action would be taken.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion concerning an urgent and important matter.
Since massive imports of chicken from the United States endanger the Canadian agriculture industry and could cause the rate of unemployment to rise, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Bechard):
June 14, 1977

That the House strongly recommend, on the one hand to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald), that steps be taken without delay to control effectively the imports of live and eviscerated chicken and, on the other hand to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), to take appropriate means to accelerate the creation of a national chicken marketing board in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, the presentation of such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of the same Standing Order. In view of the information revealed in last night's excellent CBC special on organized crime concerning, particularly, the Hong Kong connection, and in view of the fact that ex-Hong Kong police officers Lui Luk, Choi Bing Lung, Chen Cheung You, Nam Cong apd Hon Sum have-the Five Dragons-received landed immigrant status in Canada and that extradition proceedings have been sought against Nam Cong, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That the Minister of Manpower and Immigration conduct an immediate inquiry into the circumstances of their admission to Canada to determine whether each individual has properly complied with all immigration rules, regulations and standards and, secondly, that the minister inquire whether any charges have been laid or are pending against these individuals in Hong Kong or elsewhere, and that the minister report to the House within two weeks from this date by way of a statement on motions so that the Canadian public can be reassured that the immigration service is not being subverted.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise under the terms of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration granted 21,000 ministerial orders in 1975, 18,800 in 1974 and 19,500 in 1973, cases which included persons who were prohibited from being landed under
Presence in Gallery
the provisions of section 5 of the Immigration Act, and in view of the fact that Canadians have always endorsed an immigration policy based on compassion and humanitarian considerations, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie):
That the Minister of Manpower and Immigration consider granting Ronald Tove and Jeannie Rae landed immigrant status on the basis of humanitarian grounds.


Mr. Speaker:: In accordance with the terms of Standing Order 43 the motion requires the unanimous consent of the House before it can be presented. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the terms of Standing Order 43 to present a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the increasing awareness of the pervasive influence of organized crime in our country and the necessity for a greater priority by governments to counteract this alarming state of affairs, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn):
That the Solicitor General and the Minister of Justice take steps to reassess the adequacy of resources available to the RCMP in terms of personnel and equipment, and examine the priorities whereby so many RCMP officers are engaged in the policing of municipal and provincial statutes rather than directing their expertise to a more pressing and urgent need, that is, the combatting of white collar and organized crime as well as intelligence activities.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion requires unanimous consent before it can be put. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF U K. PARLIAMENT DELEGATION
Mr. Speaker:: Before beginning the question period I should like to call the attention of hon. members to the presence in our gallery of a very distinguished group of visitors, being a subcommittee of the Select Committee on Procedure of the United Kingdom parliament, headed by a very distinguished member of parliament, Mr. Kenneth Baker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

June 14, 1977
6640_________________________
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Justice. Given the renewed evidence last night on the second part of the CBC television series on organized crime that a great deal of the problem which is related to organized crime relates to matters clearly within federal jurisdiction, such as loan sharking, narcotics and immigration irregularities, will the Minister of Justice act immediately to have a national inquiry, preferably in the form of a royal commission, look into the state of organized crime in Canada and to recommend means by which we may take action to protect Canadians against organized crime in this country?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, essentially I would say what I said yesterday and what I said in committee this morning, that the most effective way of dealing with this problem is-


Walter David Baker: Here we go again.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Ronald Basford: -for this parliament to deal with legislation which is currently before it, one being the Immigration Act and the other being, more importantly, Bill C-51.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: What about the Historic Sites and Monuments Act?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Hon. members opposite seem very sensitive after last night's show.


Walter David Baker: The whole country is sensitive.


An hon. Member:: Where is their hero today?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I can only read and adopt the view of the Canadian chiefs of police who said on Friday, in reference to the passage of those wiretap amendments-


An hon. Member:: They were in favour of capital punishment, as well.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. Leader of the Opposition on a supplementary question.


Charles Joseph Clark: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The only group which is not showing sensitivity to this problem is the government of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The government of Canada refuses to take the action that it should take and pretends that somehow or other wiretapping would have stopped the Five Dragons or any of the other indications of illegality which were made very clear on the program last night. What is clear to the House of Commons and to the country, if not to to the government, is that a mere improvement in police technology is not going to stop organized crime.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Hees:: You have got to be against it, not for it.


Charles Joseph Clark: What is needed is a determination by this government to fight organized crime.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steve Eugene Paproski: Right on.


Charles Joseph Clark: I ask the Minister of Justice, now, why he will not call an inquiry into organized crime in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I had some difficulty hearing the question of the hon. Leader of the Opposition. I did hear him say, however, that what is needed is a clear determination by this parliament to pass some laws. I would agree with that-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Ronald Basford: This parliament has been warned since 1974, 1975, 1976 and 1977 by the police authorities of this country that by reason of the law of this land they are handicapped in dealing with the organizers of organized crime. If there is determination needed anywhere, it is determination by the gentlemen opposite-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: What about capital punishment?


Stanley Ronald Basford: -to take their courage in their hands and pass some laws.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House will realize that the principal combatants here are engaged in what is essentially a debate on measures which are before the House. If there is to be a use of the question period, it is to seek information. If there is to be-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Surely the House will understand-order, please-that in the exchange that has just taken place we have departed from the format of a question seeking
June 14, 1977

information and an answer providing it. If there is to be a use of the question period, perhaps we can proceed; but if we are to continue with the debate, then the debate ought to take place on the legislation.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, what we have departed from, and what we departed from long ago with this government, is the practice of giving information to the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: What I want to know, and what the people of Canada want to know, is why this government refuses to get serious about fighting organized crime.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Why does it refuse to call an inquiry into organized crime in this country?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, it was reported to this House in 1975 that the inability of the police to deal with organized crime was a clear and always present danger. I quote from a report tabled in this House to which the government responded by means of legislation-


An hon. Member:: Like capital punishment.


Stanley Ronald Basford: -which needs to be passed, on the recommendation of every police force in this country. The Leader of the Opposition prefaced one of his questions with reference to the so-called Five Dragons. If he wishes to direct that question to the Solicitor General he will receive an answer about the Five Dragons.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice will obviously hide behind anything he can.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: What we want to know-and it is a simple question-is why the Minister of Justice will not do his duty and call an inquiry into organized crime in this country, so that we might take all the action necessary to fight it.


ORGANIZED CRIME-WIRETAPPING LEGISLATION TO COMBAT-REQUEST FOR ROYAL COMMISSION STUDY
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, the only answer given to the Leader of the Opposition by the Minister of Justice was that Bill C-51 should pass. Bill C-51 excludes 11 million long guns and it changes the law in reference to wiretapping slightly. I ask the minister this question: In light of the fact that in 1976 there were 1,062 people wiretapped and imprisoned, and in light of the fact that of
Oral Questions
those 1,062 persons there were only 13 convictions, is that the minister's serious answer to controlling crime?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and his colleagues remind me of the legal story: if you have a bad case, make lots of noise.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: You should know.


An hon. Member:: Louder.


George Harris Hees: That is why you have been shouting.


Stanley Ronald Basford: The figures to which the hon. gentleman refers were explained in the second reading debate on that bill.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: They certainly were not.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Obviously, authorizations obtained in one year do not lead to arrests or convictions in that year, but in subsequent years. Those figures were carefully documented by the Solicitor General in the second reading debate on the bill.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: We have heard that answer before, and I notice the Solicitor General has changed that answer. This report is by His Excellency the Governor General of Canada, and it does not deal with that. I want to repeat, there were 1,062 phones wiretapped, and only 13 convictions. A royal commission would permit witnesses to be called and subpoenaed by the police.
In light of the fact that a royal commission inquiry into crime would permit documents to be subpoenaed, read and produced, which would lead to charges being laid and result in convictions, will the minister not reconsider his position, in view of the answer he gave me on September 17, 1975, when I pressed this matter forward in the House in reference to the crime commission inquiry going on in the province of Quebec, at which time he said that the provinces were handling it? Does he recommend ten royal commissions to be started in Canada, or will he take his responsibility under the BNA Act which calls for criminal law to fall under his jurisdiction?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I indicated yesterday that on these matters which involve the administration of justice I would, of course, consult the attorneys general. The Solicitor General and I have also consulted from time to time members of the RCMP, who feel that there are far more effective measures of getting investigations, charges, prosecutions and incarcerations carried out than by way of a royal commission. It is seldom that I agree with the Globe and Mail, but this morning it says, in an editorial referring to the Attorney General-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Next day it will be the Toronto Sun.

June 14, 1977
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for New Westminster.


ORGANIZED CRIME-HONG KONG POLICEMEN GRANTED LANDED IMMIGRANT STATUS
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. It, too, is inspired by that most excellent program of the CBC which this House tends to kick around from time to time. Perhaps we should offer it our congratulations for a job well done.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: It does its job.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Would the minister advise the House whether the five Hong Kong policemen who attained landed immigrant status in Canada met all the standard criteria under the Immigration Act? Can he also advise us whether any of them are at present sought by the authorities in Hong Kong, and in particular can he advise us whether, with respect to one Nam Cong whom they have been trying to extradite back to Hong Kong, his department has co-operated in the extradition proceeding?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, it is wonderful that we have people from the British House of Commons learning how we conduct ourselves during the question period.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: At least they get answers over there.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I am afraid they will go back and say they had nothing to learn from the opposition parties, at any rate.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Answer the question.


Steve Eugene Paproski: You bombed out twice. Now try a third time.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: It is hard to know which hon. member to reply to.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that the question which was put by the hon. member for New Westminster was a very straightforward and direct question.


An hon. Member:: Just answer the question.


An hon. Member:: Clean up your act.


An hon. Member:: Laughing on the outside, crying on the inside.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member did, in fact, have a serious question and I was getting around to it. But I thought

it might be more appropriate if he could hear my answer, and I thought that by making that comment I would quieten down hon. members opposite. At the time of admission, none of the former Hong Kong policemen referred to had been convicted of any crime and they were, in fact, legally admitted to Canada. Some people suggest that they might have committed crimes in Canada and on that basis should not have been admitted. That is something we can debate later. The department, however, has been aware for some time of the allegations made against these persons, but so far investigations have not revealed any evidence that would permit action under the Immigration Act. In one particular case I understand that a request for action has been made by the Hong Kong authorities to have an individual returned, and a Federal Court judge dismissed that application and ordered the suspect freed and proceedings dropped. In so far as extradition proceedings are concerned, that would come under the aegis of my colleague, the Solicitor General.


ORGANIZED CRIME-NUMBER OF RCMP OFFICERS ENGAGED IN INVESTIGATIONS
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Solicitor General whether he can advise about extradition proceedings against Nam Cong. In addition, would he advise the House why it is that the RCMP has assigned, according to my information, some 600 individuals to be actively engaged in looking into political subversion in Canada? The RCMP also has another 500 from the Department of National Defence to give them a hand in terms of political subversion in Canada. My information is that there are six full-time RCMP officers in Ottawa whose special responsibility is organized crime. Would the Solicitor General advise whether my information is accurate or otherwise, and would he also advise the House whether he believes this is a fair balance in view of the risk to the country brought about by either political subversion or organized crime?


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, as far as extradition proceedings are concerned, I have received no requests concerning this matter, which I presume in any event would be addressed first to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


An hon. Member:: There's another buck passed.


Charles Joseph Clark: We will soon get around to Goyer.


Francis Fox: The hon. member also asked a more general question in connection with organized crime. Listening to the opposition during the course of the question period this afternoon, one gets the impression that they discovered organized crime on Monday and Tuesday nights by watching television.


Mr. Fraser:: Sunday and Monday night.


Charles Joseph Clark: He's got the days wrong, too.
June 14, 1977


Francis Fox: The RCMP has been very interested in the activities of organized crime in this country since the mid-1950s. I have consulted the RCMP on a number of occasions concerning the question of the crime inquiry which hon. members opposite have referred to. The very seriously considered advice I received from the RCMP is that in many instances, while a national crime inquiry night be dramatic and make good television, it is not the most productive way to deal with organized crime. I am advised it would be far better to proceed with joint force operations. I would like to give one example. As a result of joint force operations in the Toronto area there have been over 40 prosecutions in the last four months. The RCMP has also participated in setting up-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Walter David Baker: If he wants to make a statement, we will let him.


George Harris Hees: Turn the page, Francis.


Francis Fox: -a criminal intelligence service, which was suggested by the then minister of justice in Quebec in 1966. Since that time there have been more than 48 police departments involved with this criminal intelligence service. This includes 22 RCMP crime intelligence units right across the country. This indicates that one of the top priorities of the RCMP has been, and will continue to be, the fight against organized crime in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ORGANIZED CRIME-RESOURCES TO COMBAT
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I know there is a lot of noise in the House, but the Solicitor General obviously did not hear my question. My question dealt with the allocation of resources in the fight against organized crime. The minister did not respond. However, in terms of the discovery of organized crime in Canada, I can assure the Solicitor General that we have known about it and that the RCMP has known about it. What we want to know is why nobody has been doing anything about it and why charges have not been laid.
My question goes back to the Minister of Justice. Under the existing wiretap law which we are seeking to amend there are almost no offences that we were shown on that television show which could not have been dealt with by wiretapping under the existing law. I want the minister to tell this House why we have not seen more charges against mafia leaders, the Five Dragons and other people when the wiretap law has been available to the RCMP all this time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Solicitor General, will be happy to answer specific questions with regard to the Five Dragons.


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


Steve Eugene Paproski: Why don't you try MacEachen. Allan knows everything about dragons.


Stanley Ronald Basford: As to the balance of the question, there is a long record-and I would be happy to answer by way of a written answer-of the charges laid and the convictions obtained by the RCMP over, for example, the last four years. They are very extensive. The hon. member for New Westminster knows very well that the activities of the co-ordinated law enforcement unit of British Columbia, of which the RCMP is a member and actively co-operates, have led over the last two years to a number of very serious drug conspiracy, heroin importation and other hard drug charges being laid. These criminal activities have been broken up and the people involved brought to court. That is as a result of effective police work. For the last three years reports from the RCMP and from others have been before this parliament, and the RCMP and others can be more effective against organized crime if some amendments to the law are passed.


AGRICULTURE
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, with your permission, perhaps we could drop jailbirds and speak of poultry.
My question is directed to the Minister of Finance. As the Quebec Federation of Poultry Producers complains bitterly that Canada imports a lot of poultry from the United States at the risk of jeopardizing our own poultry industry, can the minister tell the House whether he is acquainted with the telegram allegedly sent to him by the Quebec Federation of Poultry Producers requesting his intervention through the adoption of steps to protect the poultry producers and their industry, and if so, what reply was given to that telegram?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have had talks with my colleague the Minister of Agriculture concerning poultry markets. I believe he will be in a position to make a statement on the matter within a few days.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, in view of the answer which the minister has just given and the anxiety felt by the producers, could he tell exactly to the House what was the reply to the telegram so that we may provide information to those who quite logically come to us as members and thus enlighten them and somewhat restore their confidence?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I take the question as notice for my colleague and I will ask him to answer the hon. member.

June 14, 1977
Oral Questions


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice, and possibly also a question for the Solicitor General. I wonder why the government has decided not to have a royal commission on crime. Is it the fact that if such a commission were set up, some revelations about some well known and pampered pets of liberalism would be made? I refer to people such as John C. Doyle who, despite the fact that he had a criminal record and wanted to get out of the country, had his passport returned to him, thereby enabling him to be a fugitive from justice. Hal Banks was able to escape punishment by leaving Canada after being granted bail, with the government consenting thereto. I refer, also, to Lucien Rivard, of rink-icing fame. Is the government afraid that if a commission were set up, some revelations concerning these matters, which have been hidden for several years, would be made? Is that the truthful reason-not an evasive reason-for the failure of the government to set up this commission?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, in spite of the fact that the right hon. gentleman has played an outstanding role in the public life of this country, I find it very hard to believe that he would ask that question about a very serious problem with any other purpose than the purpose of mischief.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker-


George Harris Hees: You are too precious, Ron.


Stanley Ronald Basford: -I only mention two points: first, that of Mr. Banks.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: Just listen to the corporal.


Charles Joseph Clark: Are you going to phone a judge?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I think the record will show that the government of the right hon. gentleman did little about that situation. Second, with regard to Mr. Doyle I just indicate that, of course, the removal of the passport of someone on bail is a decision not of government but of a magistrate or judge.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, but with the consent of the government.


Stanley Ronald Basford: That was opposed by the attorney general of Newfoundland. Second, in connection with income tax matters, I made it clear in this House that the instructions to our

counsel, from both myself and the Department of National Revenue, are to pursue those income tax matters as expeditiously as possible. Third, the right hon. gentleman will know that only a short time ago action was taken pursuant to the Canadian Corporations Act to seize and examine the records of Canadian Javelin.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Go get 'em, Chief.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I did not get the contribution of the hon. gentleman opposite. What was it? He always runs for cover from a seated position with those interruptions of his. I ask the Minister of Justice, can he come clean? I am not suggesting in any way connivance on his part or deception. I never do that with regard to this government. It is stupidity. I ask this: Now that he believes he has an answer to the question I raised, will he reconsider the matter? Will he give the country the opportunity to find out the truth, to find out why those protected and pampered Grits received such good attention over the years?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, unlike the right hon. gentleman, I cannot become much cleaner.


Charles Joseph Clark: Then have an inquiry and let's see.


George Harris Hees: You are splitting hairs. Stick to the straight line, Ron, and don't try to be funny. You are comic, anyway.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Where's George Hees?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: Let's not split hairs.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that in none of the three cases raised by the right hon. gentleman is there evidence to support the proposition that there should be an inquiry. The only matter in which action is being currently taken is with regard to John C. Doyle, and I have already stated the government's position on that. Instructions have been issued to counsel that every possible step should be taken in court to prosecute with regard to outstanding income tax matters. Second, an investigation is being conducted into the corporate affairs of Canadian Javelin Limited. We are taking proper, investigative legal measures and there is no need to call or to have a royal commission on the matter.


George Harris Hees: What about your pal Hal?


ORGANIZED CRIME-HONG KONG POLICEMEN GRANTED LANDED IMMIGRANT STATUS
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration fol-
June 14, 1977

lowing the straightforward questions of the hon. member for New Westminster to which the minister replied in a jocular manner. The minister indicated that when the so-called Five Dragons were given landed immigration status there had been no investigations concerning criminal activity. I ask: When they were given landed immigration status, did they qualify under the points system, or were they given landed immigration status on the basis of their entrepreneurial skills?


An hon. Member:: They were refugees.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Further, if no such information was available, did he meet with officials either today or last night after the new information became public? Did he instruct his officials to carry out a thorough investigation or inquiry of those five in order to determine if the immigration department was subverted by those persons who were given landed immigrant status under highly questionable circumstances?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, first, the hon. member misquoted me. I said they had not been convicted of any crime. That was my response to the question raised by the hon. member for New Westminster. Second, I said we had been made aware of allegations made against those persons. So far, investigations have not revealed evidence which would permit action under the Immigration Act. Our investigations are continuing.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the serious allegations made in the CBC documentary concerning certain immigration officials who apparently were helping to land known mobsters in Canada-apparently these criminals were entering and leaving Canada at will-would the minister consider establishing an independent inquiry into the operations of the Immigration department, for two reasons: one, to clear the names of the many immigration officials who do their jobs honestly and fairly; second, to bring to justice those who are in collusion with mobsters, assuming those facts can be borne out by an inquiry?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments about the vast majority of members of the department who do their jobs honestly, effectively and well. They are to be commended, especially given the situation they face every day.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Since some 75 million people cross our borders every year, they do a fantastic job. We are always disturbed when we hear allegations of this nature. First we should check them out before we condemn anyone. Investigations are under way to see if new facts or evidence can be brought to light. That is being done, Mr. Speaker.


John Allen Fraser: Let's have a commission.
Oral Questions


ORGANIZED CRIME-ENTRY INTO CANADA OF HONG KONG POLICEMEN
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. In his earlier reply he suggested that the official opposition had only discovered organized crime last night, courtesy of television. I point out to the minister that 16 months and one day ago, on February 13, 1976, I asked the then Solicitor General about the 12 former Hong Kong policemen who had fled from Hong Kong in the face of an investigation by the independent commission looking into corruption, and their entry to Canada, in order that a dangerous situation would not be allowed to develop. The matter was also brought to the attention of the present Minister of Justice, who acknowledged the existence of the letter of complaint in May, 1976.


Walter David Baker: A cover-up.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General at that time said that he had not heard of such a report, but would consult with the Minister of Justice and the RCMP about it. My question at this time is this: Did those consultations take place with the Department of the Solicitor General, and what were the results?


Walter David Baker: They never heard about it.


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members who watched television last night know-


Charles Joseph Clark: That is the first you knew of it.


Francis Fox: -many allegations were made last night, and I would suppose that on the face of it some of them are far-fetched.


Walter David Baker: How do you know?


Francis Fox: As far as the ex-Hong Kong policemen are concerned, there are ongoing consultations between the Department of Manpower and Immigration and my department.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Yes, you are going to meet at five after three.


Francis Fox: Of course, Mr. Speaker, the decision as to immigration to this country rests ultimately with the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Francis Fox: There were many allegations made last night. Some referred to ex-Hong Kong policemen, some of whom would have been hired by the RCMP. There was a Mr. Ko who was a former member of the Hong Kong police force. He was hired by, and stayed with, the RCMP from 1969 until 1975, at which time he left.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

June 14, 1977
Oral Questions


Francis Fox: it is also important to let people have the right to defend themselves against some of the serious allegations that have been made. The hon. member raised the question about Hong Kong policemen. I am trying to give him an answer. There was also a question raised about Mr. Chan who was employed, and is still employed, by the RCMP. He has been the object of a number of allegations that originated particularly in the underworld in Vancouver over the past few years. This individual has been extremely helpful in solving a number of drug cases in the Vancouver area. We ought to set the record straight. Mr. Chan is still in the RCMP and is a valuable member of that force.


ORGANIZED CRIME-GOVERNMENT INFORMATION ON HONG KONG IMMIGRANTS
William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Justice. The minister acknowledged in his letter that he had made inquiries into the matter raised by Mr. Parwani of the Hong Kong Star and had asked his officials to advise him if any additional information had come to light. That was in a letter written in May, 1976. I ask the Minister of Justice at this time what reports did come to him concerning this very serious matter which he has known about for over a year.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the report in front of me. However, as I recall it, those individuals that were mentioned were legally landed knowing that there were royal commissions under way in Hong Kong which might result in reports being made against some of them, and those reports might lead to requests for extradition. Subsequently, as a result of those royal commission inquiries in Hong Kong we were asked for our assistance in extradition, and assistance was given.


ORGANIZED CRIME-RCMP RESOURCES TO COMBAT
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. Is the Solicitor General satisfied that adequate resources, in terms of equipment and trained personnel, are presently available to the RCMP in order that they may turn increased attention to combatting organized crime and concentrating on security and intelligence matters; and will he, in order to expedite the priorities which 1 am sure he will agree ought to be given to the force in these respects, reassess the resources which are now being used by the force to police municipal and provincial statutes which could be done by other law enforcement agencies or even, in some cases, by para-police organizations and free the RCMP for more urgent and pressing duties?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know if the hon. member is speaking as official critic for Her Majesty's Official Opposition, and whether the opposition is taking the position that the RCMP ought to be pulled out of the provinces and cease fulfilling their obligations in that regard.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Francis Fox: That is certainly a very valid deduction from the hon. member's question. As far as the more direct part of the question is concerned, I indicated previously that the fight against organized crime is a priority issue within the RCMP. This is being done at the provincial level, where the RCMP are fulfilling their obligations under provincial contracts, and at the federal level. It is quite certain that any police force would like to have more men and more equipment. That is almost a certainty. I refer the hon. member to the exercise in restraint announced by the government two years ago. I point out that one of the few agencies not subject to that type of restraint in terms of men, money and equipment was the RCMP and other elements of the criminal justice system.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I was hoping the Solicitor General would agree that a more selective and intelligent use of the RCMP's capabilities was in order, but I see that he is too sensitive to concede it. Does he intend to press for more resources for the RCMP and to secure better treatment for the force by bringing in at least some of the recommendations of Judge Rene Marin, so that the morale of the force can be improved and they can get on with their very important duties and not start nit-picking about some of the unsatisfactory negotiations with respect to the provincial responsibility of the RCMP?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, as I have already indicated in previous responses to the House and in response to questions brought to my attention during the course of the examination of the estimates of the Department of the Solicitor General, a number of recommendations of the Marin commission have been implemented by the force. I look forward to introducing legislation at the next session of parliament, or in the fall, whichever comes first, implementing some of the main recommendations of the Marin report.


ORGANIZED CRIME-ROYAL COMMISSION STUDY
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. In view of the minister's oft repeated argument that a royal commission on crime is best handled at the provincial level, will he advise whether he really believes a provincial attorney general would feel he has the proper jurisdiction to inquire into such matters as the very serious allegation last night that there were criminal influences at work within the RCMP, criminal influences at work within the immigration services, that there has been a laundering of foreign, criminal moneys through tax havens for investment, jurisdiction over narcotics, the interprovincial and international organization of crime and, something that has not yet been referred to in this House, the possible involvement of federal members of parliament in this matter? Does the Minister of Justice really believe that a provincial royal commission could properly investigate and report on these matters, when obviously this jurisdiction lies at his door and no one else's?
June 14, 1977


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, there are obvious areas in the hon. member's list that would be difficult for provincial inquiries, such as wrongdoings by members of parliament, unless those members of parliament were committing a criminal offence within a province as it would then lend itself to a provincial inquiry. There is the matter of immigration which my colleague, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, indicated is the subject matter of an inquiry. On the subject of narcotics, the provincial attorney general of British Columbia, myself and our respective officials have been meeting over the past four months in order to devise the best possible way to deal with both the supply situation and the demand situation for narcotics, and how to most effectively deal with drug-related crime that evolves from the drug trade. I mention British Columbia because it has the highest percentage of drug use in Canada and the highest percentage of drug-related crime.
Throughout those discussions among both ministers, our officials and our respective police and law enforcement authorities, nowhere has it been suggested that the appropriate answer to dealing with those problems which are apparent to everyone would be by means of a public inquiry.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege following the deliberate, Machiavel-lic and savage smear attack launched last evening against my personal integrity by the CBC's hatchetmen, William MacAdam, Richard Nielsen, et al.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claude Wagner: Throughout my public life, I have studiously refrained from suing the media, whose right to irresponsibility has now become, for too many of its representatives, a Canadian tradition. But last evening, treacherous innuendos, unwarranted and unfair, carried by the national network leave me with no alternative but to bring the matter to your attention, Mr. Speaker, prior to pursuing it further in the courts where justice will supersede amateurish sensationalism coupled with hooded anonymity.
I do not have to apologize for having been the most ardent foe and scourge of the mafia since I entered public life in 1960.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claude Wagner: I do not have to remind friends and enemies alike of my activities as a Crown attorney and as a judge to end the influence of the underworld in Quebec society. Nor do I have to recall those years of sincere dedication to law and order as solicitor general, attorney general and minister of
Privilege-Mr. Wagner
justice, despite the ugly threats to my family and myself requiring 24-hour security to permit me to discharge my duties.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud of my record as a crusader against organized crime throughout my judicial and political career. 1 will not accept lying down the defamation attempt of which 1 was the victim last evening by the CBC's hired hit men.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, no CBC reporter and no CBC producer will do to me and my family what the mafia was unable to do to us in my 17 years of public life. Therefore, on this question of privilege, and with the utmost respect, I rest my case in your hands, Mr. Speaker, hoping that you, and through you the Secretary of State in a statement on motions will secure from the CBC a public apology without delay, without conditions, in the hope that such an apology published by all media will, after the fact, lessen the pain and suffering my family and I have endured.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has returned to the question of privilege which has been raised in the past few days. The question began in a general form with the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) about a week ago. It has been contributed to on several occasions in the intervening period and there have been some major contributions as a result of events that have taken place since that time. Nevertheless, all of the contributions, including those made yesterday, have a general bearing on the over-all question which I had intended to rule on today if at all possible.
In the light of the notice I received this morning from the hon. member who has just spoken, I thought it would be appropriate for me to hear him before attempting to make a general pronouncement on the questions of privilege, as they relate to the very important relationship between this House and the freedom of the press. I would, therefore, like to take these latest remarks into account and perhaps allow a few more days to pass before I attempt to comment definitively on the relationship between the freedom of the press and the House of Commons in the rather narrow context of privilege.
A point which has some bearing in a rather indirect way, but is nevertheless tied to the actions of the press, was the one raised some time ago by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt). I indicated earlier that that point remains outstanding as well, and I would like to try to resolve it at the same time. Last week I indicated that hon. members who felt there was something else to contribute to the point raised so ably and thoroughly by the hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway ought to be given an opportunity to do so. If there are any contributions which hon. members wish to make, I would certainly hear them now on the point raised by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, which concerns the British practice of holding as a breach of the privileges of the House the publication of a confidential committee report.

June 14, 1977
Privilege-Mr. Wagner
I see the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) is seeking the floor.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I will be quite brief. One of the things which prompted me to rise was your mention that it was the British practice that should be looked at most carefully. I should like Your Honour to take a further look at our own Standing Orders in relation to the publication of confidential documents. It would seem to me that the Canadian practice, not merely the British practice, needs to be followed.
I believe it is vital to the rights of members of parliament that confidential documents which are lying in this place or around this place should be treated by the press as matters of confidence, and if the press fails to do so it seems to me some action should be taken against them. When documents are marked "Confidential" they should be kept confidential, because the privilege of coming into this place is a special one which we grant as members of parliament. I am, therefore, asking Your Honour to accept the lucid and eloquent argument put forward by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kings-way (Mrs. Holt) that in the case of a prima facie breach of privilege only a standing committee of the House can determine the true cause and protect the confidentiality of documents which all of us have around this place.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, on the point alluded to by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt), and following along with what Your Honour said in dealing with these matters, I hesitate to say there is a mixing of questions of privilege. Though they relate to the press in a very general way, they are quite different from the point of view of the judgment which must be made by you, sir.
The question of privilege which was originally raised by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) is a matter which stands on its own set of facts. It is not on all fours with the facts raised by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner), the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), and the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Joyal). The cases are different. I suggest, with the greatest respect, that the jurisprudence of this House on those two points would not be as clear and as precise as this House would require and that the press would require, depending upon Your Honour's judgment, if you dealt with those two matters as if they were part and parcel of the same question. I hope Your Honour was not leading to dealing with the matter in that way.


Mr. Speaker:: Let me assure the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), and all hon. members, that I propose to deal with them at the same time, but as entirely separate items. The hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell).


Hon. Martin O'Connell (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a very brief point. I recall having raised a question of privilege with respect to the publication by certain newspapers of the interim report of the special joint committee on immi-

gration policy before it was presented to the House. In Your Honour's ruling there, if my memory is correct, and I have checked it very quickly, you referred to the difficulty in making that case in that my allegation was not specific and there was no specific allegation of misconduct affecting the privileges of the House. I should like to raise the possibility that in your ruling you give some guidance to us as members as to what constitutes specifics. Must the newspapers be named? Must persons be named? I had named newspapers, but I did not name persons. One of the reasons we seem to fail in these questions of privilege is that from a layman's point of view the very act of publication is a misconduct. That is a specific misconduct and should not need to be any more specific than that. That is why one seeks a reference to the committee to explore the facts. I would appreciate it very much, as would, possibly, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, if we had some clarification on what "specific" means in terms of our rules with respect to questions of privilege of this kind.


Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, apropos the question of privilege just articulated by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner), I know in considering these matters that Your Honour must take into account traditional precedents and the traditions of this House. I would suggest and recommend most strongly to you, Mr. Speaker, as the chief protector of our rights, that there comes a time, in terms of our relationship with the fourth estate, while we pay attention to precedents and to traditions, that modern phenomena be given precise consideration by Your Honour in determining whether privilege exists.
I remember that my father appeared on behalf of Sir Arthur Currie, after the Second World War, on a libel cause. There was just a little column placed in a little daily newspaper. We are not discussing little articles in a weekly or a daily newspaper; we are talking about a modern phenomenon-television. Millions of people watch television during prime time. We are talking about a phenomenon called smear by innuendo.
In considering the valid privilege of the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe, I would hope this modern phenomenon- libel through the electric media-with millions of people watching at prime time on Sunday nights is not the same as a traditional insertion in a weekly or a daily newspaper. Whether we like it or not, we have got to come to terms with this modern phenomenon in the electric media, especially with regard to smear by innuendo. I appeal to you, sir, as the first commoner amongst us, to give consideration to the valid question of privilege stated by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As I indicated earlier this afternoon, I hope hon. members will bear with me as I take a few days to bring this matter together to deal with the various questions which have been raised: those relating to the recent television program in respect of organized crime, those of about a week ago in respect of the relationship between the government and the press of the country, and those raised
June 14, 1977

earlier by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) in respect of premature publication of what was allegedly a confidential document. I will attempt to do so and shall try to keep the House informed as to exactly when I will make that decision.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a point of order arising out of yesterday's question period. It is important to us from the point of view of the operation of the question period. I am concerned with the first questions by the hon. Leader of the Opposition during the oral question period. He was followed by the hon. member for Lisgar dealing with the government's policy respecting appointments to the public service. The questions by the Leader of the Opposition dealt with appointments by orders in council. There was a series of five questions by the hon. Leader of the Opposition. They dealt with the appointment of ex-Liberal candidates, or their spouses, to a variety of positions within the Canadian judiciary, regulatory agencies and the Public Service of Canada. Those questions were allowed to proceed in the normal way. As reported at page 6577 of Hansard, the supplementary question by the hon. member for Lisgar was as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Acting Prime Minister. Undoubtedly, this morning's newspaper report also missed the roles of Liberal campaign managers, begmen, PR men and party hacks of various descriptions. My question to the Acting Prime Minister is simply whether it is government policy to create a partisan public service. If not, will he at the earliest opportunity be bringing under the Public Service Commission the bulk of order in council appointments to prevent this from happening?
The minister did not answer the question; he sat down. The next remark in Hansard is by you, sir, which reads as follows:
Order, please. The hon. member for New Westminster.
Your Honour followed the customary practice. Hansard continues by showing the hon. member for Lisgar saying, "A supplementary, Mr. Speaker." Then Your Honour intervened by saying:
By the most basic definition of supplementary questions, they must arise out of the response to the original question.
With respect, I say that if Your Honour reviews the words of the question put by the hon. member for Lisgar, you will see that two things occurred. The first was the hon. member saying, in the first place, "I have a supplementary question for the Acting Prime Minister," which indicates that that clearly followed as a question supplementary-at least, it could be so construed and in my respectful submission it ought to be so construed-to the question of the Leader of the Opposition. Then the hon. member said, "A supplementary". He was not allowed to stand, because the minister refused to answer. That is what happened on the floor of the House of Commons.
What concerns me is that if your ruling is allowed to stand generally as, "-they must arise out of the response to the original question", then it is open to ministers merely to sit and a line of supplementary questions leading from the main question of a member in the position of the hon. member for Lisgar is ended.
Privilege-Mr. Wagner
The alternative-and Your Honour obviously did not consider this, but I wish you would-is that it is open on the record to ask a supplementary not merely to the question raised by the hon. member for Lisgar but to the original series of questions. There is nothing to indicate otherwise; it simply reads, "A supplementary, Mr. Speaker", to the original series of questions put by the Leader of the Opposition. I know I cannot question the ruling of the Chair and the ruling has been made, but in the event the hon. member for Lisgar and, therefore, Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition and, therefore, this parliament, was stopped at that point from pursuing a line of questioning.
It is clear we must have some guidelines if we have arrived at the point-and I hope we have not arrived at it-where a minister, by sitting down and refusing to answer, can rule out any further supplementaries a member might have, especially when we are dealing with the broad subject matter of appointments to the public service, regulatory agencies and elsewhere, to which the line of questioning by the hon. member for Lisgar was clearly supplementary.


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, on the question raised by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton, I merely want to say very briefly that it is a well understood practice that a minister of the Crown has the option of answering or declining to answer. Ministers usually reply, but sometimes they do not. In this case I deliberately chose not to reply because I thought the question was intemperate and argumentative. The hon. member has another point, namely, the action of the Chair. I am merely re-establishing the point that in certain circumstances ministers may decline to answer, within the practice of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think I can probably reassure both hon. members. The judgment in a particular situation, of course, is always somewhat related to the circumstances. It has always been the practice of the House to permit to Her Majesty's Official Opposition the lead question in any question period, and to follow that with a supplementary questioner to the lead-off questioner for Her Majesty's Official Opposition. That combined questioning force usually lasts for five or six questions. Yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition exercised his option, which is extended to him on a number of occasions, to use up almost all of those questions, by the Chair permitting him some five consecutive questions. I believe the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton counted five questions by the Leader of the Opposition.
In coming to the point where the hon. member for Lisgar followed, there is always some effect on my handling of the decision by the actual circumstances then present. The hon. member for Lisgar was asking the sixth consecutive question on that subject. He asked a question which in its initial stages might have meant there had been the intention to create a partisan public service. He might have been considered to be argumentative or frivolous in that respect. It seems to me, however, that he corrected that and ended with a serious

June 14, 1977
Privilege-Mr. Wagner
question. In any case, the minister, as he said today, chose not to answer.
I hope I can reassure the hon. member for Grenville-Carle-ton. I said that when the hon. member for Lisgar sought a supplementary to a question which had not been answered- and I used the language of the original question-by the very basis of its definition, a supplementary question must be one which arises out of the response to the original question. 1 think the words that are causing the hon. member trouble are "original question". What "original" in that context was designed to convey was the question which the supplementary was following. In other words, if a supplementary question is to be permitted it must flow from the response to the question to which it is supplementary, not to the original question, as the case may be.
The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton seemed to be concerned that unless the question is supplementary to the first question asked by the Leader of the Opposition, it falls. That is not the case. The supplementary, if it is to stand, must flow from the response to the question which had previously been put by the same questioner or by another questioner. In the circumstances, if a minister exercises his legitimate option not to answer, I fail to see how the Chair can allow a supplementary question flowing from a response which does not exist. The response is not the response to the original question, but the response to the question in this context, to the original question put by the hon. member for Lisgar, not the hon. Leader of the Opposition.
It seems to me it does not follow that if a minister refuses to answer one question and thereby stops supplementary questions on that occasion, there is any prohibition against other members seeking the floor during the same question period and continuing to put related questions on the same subject to the same minister.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I realize the difficulty the Chair has, but this is a very confusing matter.


An hon. Member:: Only you are confused.


Walter David Baker: It is a confusing matter and it is very important to the operation of the question period, even if the hon. member opposite does not understand that. Mr. Speaker, I take it from your statement that if the hon. member had said, "A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, arising out of the questions put by the Leader of the Opposition," Your Honour's judgment might have been different, given the fact that there was no partisans or some other reason to put it down.
In other words, I am asking if it is now to be the rule of this House that an hon. member who is second in a series of questions on a particular subject can only have a supplementary question relating to his own original question, or is it still within the ambit of supplementary questions that a member, second in a series on the same subject matter, can ask a question supplementary to a question asked by the first questioner in the series.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member seeks clarification. Surely the individual circumstances would govern. Perhaps if the hon. member for Lisgar had said yesterday, "I see the minister does not want to pursue that subject further. Therefore, I have a supplementary to another minister on the subject raised," that may have been permitted, in the circumstances. I do not think I can go any further than that.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-423, to amend the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (appeals).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to correct an apparent anomaly in the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. My colleague, the hon. member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Penner), discovered that through an oversight there is no appeal to the Federal Court or the Supreme Court on matters of fact or law of decisions or procedures of the various electoral boundaries commissions appointed under the act. This bill would provide an appeal to the Federal Court, thus bringing this regulatory agency under the same rules as other regulatory agencies.


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

Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I should like to designate tomorrow as an allotted day. My understanding is that following tomorrow we will be discussing the motion in the name of the financial critic of the official opposition on the anti-inflation program. If the assigned days under the law are used, we would have a division on that on Monday next.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I was in fact rising to ask the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) if he would designate tomorrow as an allotted day. Now that he has done so, I wonder if I may indicate to the House that the motion for tomorrow will be put down by the New Democratic Party. It will be in the name of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) and it will read as follows:
June 14, 1977

That this House calls on the government to establish forthwith a royal commission on organized crime in Canada.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1,779, 2,364, and 2,719.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	What is the status of the proposed new offshore oil and gas regulations published in May 1976?
2.	Have the proposed regulations been referred to a standing committee of the House and, if not, is it the intention of the government to refer them?
3.	Have the proposed regulations in any way been modified since they were announced in May 1976?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows: 1. On May 19, 1976, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development jointly announced that new legislation in the form of a Petroleum and Natural Gas Bill would be placed before Parliament and that new Canada Oil and Gas Land Regulations would be promulgated following passage of the new Bill. The new legislation and regulations are in the process of being drafted by officers of the Department of Justice, and it is anticipated that the legislation will be placed before Parliament during this Session.
2.	The proposed regulations will not be promulgated until after passage of the proposed Petroleum and Natural Gas Bill and hence have not been referred to a standing committee of the House. It is anticipated that they will be referred to a standing committee of the House prior to promulgation.
3.	Since the principal elements of the proposed new regulations were announced in ' May 1976 certain proposals for modifications have been made. Any changes will be announced when the proposed Petroleum and Natural Gas Bill is submitted to Parliament.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West): 1.	Have there been or are there now underway negotiations with the City of Edmonton for the ceding to the City of any or all of the National Defence property known as Prince of Wales Armories, or any of the land forming part of that complex and, if so (a) has any decision been reached and what is it (b) to what extent are there to be transfer of lands (c) what is the effective date of the transfer (d) does such a transfer of facilities mean a movement of militia training, and the offices, stores, etc. of any militia units in Edmonton and, if so, to what extent (e) would the training facilities be transferred to that portion of
Order Paper Questions
CFB Edmonton known as Griesbach Barracks and what portion thereof would be occupied by the militia (f) what is the agreed value of the property and buildings to be transferred and are there any conditions as to use applicable to such transfer?
2.	(a) Is it under consideration or has it been decided that the training facilities known as HMCS Nonsuch at Ortona Barracks are to be moved and, if so, to where and what is to be the disposition of the land and buildings of Ortona Barracks (b) if the property is to be sold, what is the valuation of the land and buildings?
3.	If the moves above are contemplated or have been decided upon, what consultation took place with local militia associations and/or the City of Edmonton?
4.	Does the contemplated move of the Canadian Airborne Regiment from CFB Edmonton to CFB Rockcliffe and CFB Petawawa involve the movement to either CFB Uplands or to CFB Trenton of any component and transport aircraft and crews that relate to ground personnel from 435 Squadron to 436 Squadron CFB Trenton and, if so (a) how many aircraft and personnel are to be involved and what are the estimated dates for such a transfer (b) how many aircraft would such a move leave available to 435 Squadron for its transport role or is this role to be also modified?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: 1. (a)
and (b) Negotiations took place in 1970 and 1971 between the City of Edmonton and Department of National Defence concerning the possible transfer of a portion of the Prince of Wales Armories site to the City for development as an expressway. No decision was reached and there are no negotiations currently underway between the City and the Department of National Defence on this matter. However, a development plan for future use of Griesbach Barracks is presently under study which may affect this and other facilities, (c) to (f) Included. Not applicable.
2.	(a) and (b) There are no plans to relocate HMCS Nonsuch.
3.	The development plan for future use of Griesbach Barracks has been discussed with officials of the militia.
4.	At the present time there are no plans to move aircraft or personnel from 435 Sqn Edmonton to 436 Sqn Trenton, (a) and (b) Not applicable.


Mr. Laprise: 1.	During the fiscal year (a) 1973-74 (b) 1974-75 (c) 1975-76 (d) 1976-77 did the Meteorological Service conduct experiments on cloud seeding and, if so, in what location?
2.	For the same years, did the Service sign contracts with or make grants to private industry or universities for experiments or research on weather modification through cloud seeding and, if so, in each case (a) with whom (b) for what amount (c) in what location was the research or experiment conducted?


Mr. Jim Fleming (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: 1. For the fiscal years: (a) 1973-74 No experiments conducted by AES; (b) 1974-75 No experiments conducted by AES; (c) 1975-76 Yes. A research experiment within a 200 mile area of Yellowknife, N.W.T. was conducted by the AES; (d) 1975-76 Yes. Further research experiments were conducted within a 200 mile area of Yellowknife, N.W.T.
6652

June 14, 1977
Canada Lands Surveys Act
2 Yes. (a) Four contracts with McGill University, (b) 1973-1974, $74,937; 1974-1975, $54,671; 1975-1976, $19,988; 1976-1977, $4,994. (c) N/A (laboratory research only).


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



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lang (for Mr. Gillespie) that Bill C-4, to amend the Canada Lands Surveys Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
Maurice Dupras: Mr. Speaker, when the House rose for lunch at one o'clock today I was trying to indicate some of the feelings of my compatriots across the country with regard to the nomenclature of some of the Crown corporations and agencies, and I indicated that there was no sinister intention in calling the new bill the Canada Lands Surveys Act. In fact, this has been the name of the act since 1952, by amendment.

The title of this law is not new; since 1952, through an amendment, it has been changed to Canada Lands Surveys Act. My colleague from Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) recalled the valuable services rendered by land surveyors who obtained their certificate through a period of apprenticeship while on the job. The great contribution of these men has been to complete the documents on surveying in Canada. My colleague from Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) was wondering if there had not been any violation of Indian territories by giving a favourable presumption to the Canada Lands Surveyor, that is, by allowing him, under the law, to pass through their territory to conduct his work. Indians have expressed very little resistance to this type of activity and I do not believe this new legislation will create any problems.
I would not want to extend the debate on this bill. Therefore, without minimizing its scope, I understand an agreement has been made among party leaders so that the three stages of the bill will take place in the House and consideration in committee could take place in committee of the whole. My colleagues might accept this arrangement and proceed to consideration of the bill in committee of the whole.


Steve Eugene Paproski: It is so agreed, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Perhaps the House would allow me to read the questions to be raised on the adjournment motion.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie)-Veterans Affairs-Deer Lodge Hospital- Request for report and negotiations with Manitoba for transfer; the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker)- Public Service-Request for investigation of dismissal of Jirvan Shah; the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan)-Transport-Rail service in Atlantic region-Extension of subsidy to all recommended passenger services.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lang (for Mr. Gillespie) that Bill C-4, to amend the Canada Lands Surveys Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Hon. members have heard the proposal made by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Dupras). Is the House agreed that the bill be referred to committee of the whole rather than to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Ethier in the chair.
Clauses 1 to 42 inclusive agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.

June 14, 1977
Allan Joseph MacEachen: that the bill be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Allan Joseph MacEachen: that the bill be read the third time and do
pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


STATUTE LAW (METRIC CONVERSION) AMENDMENT ACT, 1976 AMENDMENTS TO WHEAT BOARD ACT TO FACILITATE CONVERSION TO METRIC SYSTEM
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, June 9, consideration of the motion of Mr. Marchand (for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce) 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 Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain).
Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, it really was not my intention to debate this very important bill, but since the government has not very much more legislation to bring in this afternoon I thought I would read a few documents into the record. Last Thursday, the Minister of State for Small Business (Mr. Marchand) said that we were not receiving any letters on metrication. However, we get quite a few letters from western Canada, as some hon. members opposite know. I have in my hand a letter addressed to the minister, which he has yet to answer. This letter is much the same as many other letters and it reads as follows:
Dear Sir:
Now that the metric conversion issue is once again in the forefront, and hopefully I will not be branded a "western redneck, or a crank", I would like to register my objections to the metric conversion in general, and as it affects western agriculture in particular.
I, as a lifetime farmer and rancher, find the conversion of acres to hectares, and miles to kilometers particularly objectionable. Anyone can readily see that it is absolutely impossible to rearrange and rebuild the surveyed road system which is tied directly to the "section of land" and vice versa. Even an "old farmer" like me could possibly accept, and in time understand a multiple of ten system in a very few areas, but to expect agriculture to pick up the tab, either directly or indirectly, for any of this conversion is just not right. Our input costs (due mainly to the manufactured products we need to run our farms as efficiently as possible) keep going up and up and we have no way to pass it on, but are controlled by world markets, unless these are manipulated via quotas, import or export restrictions and/or taxes, subsidies, etc. Over these we seem to have very little or no control. It is just not justice that we are expected (and quite often told) to get "more efficient", while the rest of the economy goes merrily along its way by simply adding any increased costs in input to the end product. However, I fail to see where "acres and miles" fit into this picture anywhere. There is not even any efficiency that can be involved here, but indeed the exact opposite.
From reading parts of Hansard on this matter I feel that most of the "feedback" the government side has obtained from western Canada has certainly been obtained from sources either non-agricultural or at least so far from the "grass roots" that the informants didn't know what grass is. We are sick and tired of just having things "crammed down our throats". In many, many cases it
Metric System
emerges in western Canada as sort of a "Big Daddy in Ottawa knows best" and that we are not capable to run our own affairs.
That was from Mr. William O. Bills, and it was addressed to the Minister of State for Small Business. It was written back on February 11, 1977, and as yet it has not been answered by the minister. I have in my hand a letter to an editor. This letter pretty well tells it all. It is unfortunate that the minister is not in the chamber. Perhaps the House leader did not tell him that the metrication bill was going to be discussed this afternoon. Perhaps he will come in a little later. The editor's note is as follows:
This letter, written by Bill Veitch, is in reply to an editorial which appeared in the Western Producer Feb. 3, 1977. He shares it with us.
The letter is from R.R. 1, Wainwright, Alberta, and it is dated February 16, 1977. It reads as follows:
Dear Mr. Editor:
Your editorial in Feb. 3rd issue in which you wholeheartedly endorse metric conversion of the grain industry you also state that most farmers in the west also support your view. Well, Mr. Editor, practically all the farmers I have talked to in the Wainwright Vermilion, Irma and Edgerton area, wholeheartedly disagree with you. Until now most of us felt metric conversion was already the law of the land, and only now, when we recently heard that metric Bill C-23 was before parliament for second reading and was meeting opposition from members of parliament Alvin Hamilton, Don Mazankowski and Cliff Mclsaac, to name a few-
That hon. member is from the government side, but I can add the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga), the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn), the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Smith), the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Cadieu) and many others who have spoken on this bill, including the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers). The letter continues:
-did we realize there was still a chance to save us from this costly extravaganza.
Mr. Editor, I ask you, have you given any thought to the staggering sums of money metrification will cost the country, i.e., the retooling of factories, disruption to the building industry, and the obsolescence brought to the machine industry?
I would also point out to you that metrification will lend itself to many costly errors. You refer to $3.00 per bushel of wheat being equal to $77.81 per tonne, which I think should read $110.23 per tonne.
To make your editorial agree more with your line of thinking you also oversimplify metrification by stating the change will do away with inches, feet, yards, rods, furlongs, chains and miles, replacing them all with the metre.
As a former football player, I disagree with Jake Gaudaur, the commissioner of football. It is going to be difficult because instead of having yards on the football fields we will have so many metres. The field is going to be wider and longer and it is going to cause havoc with our great national sport, football.


Mrs. Campagnoio:: In English rugby they managed to convert.


Steve Eugene Paproski: The letter continues:
If you are going to refer to all the imperial measures why not include the milli, centi, deci, deca, hecto, and kilometres as well as metre? You also state cups, pints, quarts, gallons, pecks and bushels will all be replaced by the litre. Why did you not tell us how to judge good seed oats in metrics? We now know that good
soois-i^A

June 14, 1977
Metric System
seed oats might weigh 36 to 42 lbs. per bushel-if less we might be reluctant to buy. Of course we may all carry around a new litre pail and new metric scale (no matter what the cost) in our new brief case full of government metric propaganda (which we have already paid for, except for the interest) showing us how many kg/ha we should seed in our old drill which we should discard because we can't get bolts and nuts, chains, V belts and gears to fix.
Or we might measure our seed wheat in hectolitres-one hectolitre being 2.838 bushels-
This is like a good study in calculus back at school.


Otto Emil Lang: You can do it. It just takes a hecto-day.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I continue:
-so should weigh approximately 170.28 lbs.
That is just about my weight.
We might have to import an Olympic weight lifter to fill our drill though as at $77.81 per tonne for wheat we certainly can't afford to buy a new drill fill and our old one is waiting for a new hydraulic hose and fitting that won't fit anyway.
You didn't tell us how simple it will be, Mr. Editor, to spray our crops with so many litres, grams and milligrams per hectare with our old pails of 64 or 80 or 128 ounce acid equivalent per gallon in our old sprayer tank with our new sprayer pump (again no matter what the cost), that pumps so many litres per minute. Now if we figure the above without error, we can field test to be sure. We will travel to the old half-mile fence with our old 45-foot sprayer, get out our calculator and our brief case and find to our amazement that one foot equals 0.3048 metre times 45 equals 13.716 metres divided by 1,000 equals .013716 kilometres, and also one mile equals 1.609 kilometres times one half equals 0.8045 kilometres. We now bounce the decimal three places to the right (x 1,000) and end up with 804.5 metres. Now 804.5 x 13.716 equals 11034.522 square metres which could be so many hectares on which we should use so many litres of fluid containing so many kilograms of concentrate.
I am sure this is old hat to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. He has been educated in this program and knows what it is all about. I continue:
Please, Mr. Editor, would you help me out as I just lost my concentration? Oh! I forgot to tell you I still have my old pressure gauge on the sprayer-I was spraying at 45 pounds per square inch and travelling at 5 1/3 miles per hour with my old tractor. Anyway, I want to rush back and tell my wife, whose name I've changed to Zaza Zaza as she is now 91.44 x 66.04 x 96.52, to bring out dinner to the back 40-I mean 16.187778 ha's (40 plus 2.471).
Think, Mr. Editor, of the implications to the building industry. In a few years what will we replace 4-feet x 8-feet sheets of plywood, sheet metal for roofing on 2-feet centres and certain lengths of lumber to repair corrals or fences where we have installed pressure treated posts, maybe even in cement, that will last some 30 years.
A neighbour of mine recently made a trip to Denmark where they changed to metrics some 65 or so years ago. He says they have had and are still having many problems in the building industry.
I believe the government has done a great selling job on metrics, on down through the provincial governments, the grains industry and other organizations, with little or no input from the grass roots-the people who will pay the shot. The government tells us Canada will under metrification be more able to sell manufactured goods. I ask you, what will we export, shirts to Korea, or more reactors to Argentina? Like it or not, Canada does 60 per cent of our trade with the United States and until such time as they change-a change that is meeting ever increasing opposition from what I read and hear, I really can't see the staggering expense involved being justified. Is it so costly for our grains industry to continue converting large volumes of grain to metric tons at the terminals? I don't think so!
Is it, Mr. Editor, the right time to burden farmers with the added costs involved in the change-new scales, new tape measures, new tap and dye set, two separate supplies of bolts and nuts, hydraulic hose and fittings, fuel lines and brass fittings, V-belts, tool sets, drill sets, etc., etc? I really don't think so!
I would therefore like to advise all interested farmers to express their feelings on metrification now, by letter or phone, to their respective member of parliament.
Or the minister in charge of small business who is in charge of metric conversion. I continue:
I would also like at this time, Mr. Editor, to invite you to help me with my crop spraying this spring, as I must concede that I cannot learn the conversions in a few days, as you state in your editorial. The directions to my farm from Wainwright are 1.609 kilometres east, 12.872 north, 4.0225 east, 12.872 north, 4.0225 northwest, 2.4135 northeast, and 3.419125 kilometres north. Please disregard all the old crossroads but keep a close watch on your odometer in your new (no matter what the cost) 1977 car.
That letter says it all. For the benefit of the minister responsible for small business, I with to include in the record certain remarks. Speaking to the conference on the impact of metric conversion in North America, Mr. John Bulloch, president of the Canadian of Independent Business, said:
While the results of the metric conversion process may benefit Canada in the long-run, if we are not careful, the changeover process could do real harm to the small business community. The theme of my remarks is, "a milligram of prevention is worth a kilogram of cure."
It will be the responsibility of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business to maximize the benefits and minimize the harmful effects of the metric changeover on small business. Most small businessmen do not yet fully understand the implications of the problem involved in metrication.
It will be very difficult for the metric commission to fully involve the 650,000 members of the independent business community in the changeover process. It is true that many trade associations and other organizations are now, or will be, represented on the various metric sector committees and subcommittees. Unfortunately, these associations and organizations simply do not, and cannot, adequately represent small business. Larger firms can afford the time and money needed to be involved in trade associations or sector committee meetings. The small businessman, by definition, has to mind the store.
The federation is a non-partisan, political action organization of small and medium-size, Canadian-owned businesses from every corner of the country. Our membership has grown in only three and one-half years to over 21,000. We enjoy a growth rate of over 1,000 new members per month and are projecting a membership of 50,000 for early 1977. We now own our own head office building in Don Mills, Ontario, with facilities in Ottawa, Montreal and Vancouver. Our staff of over sixty operates in all ten provinces and in both languages. We consult privately and confront politically, if necessary, forces in government, business and labour in order to protect the interests of Canada's small business community.
We are naturally concerned that our approach to metric conversion is a responsible one in the interests of our constituency and the nation as a whole. We have been in touch with the American small business community and congressmen in connection with the reported opposition to the U.S. bill by labour and small business. As you know, the opposition was not against the bill as such, but against the fact that no amendments could be made to it. A new bill will be brought down to set up a metric commission to draft the conversion programme. It is now clear that large firms in the U.S. are going full speed ahead with metric conversion. There is no doubt that large firms, particularly multi-nationals who sell in world markets, will benefit from metrication Small firms rarely enjoy the benefits of international trade.
Our manufacturing complex is basically composed of branch plants. Domestic subsidiaries will, of necessity, convert to metric if the parent company converts. If metrication benefits foreing multi-nationals, Canadian branch plants will be in favour of it, regardless of the impact on Canadian-owned domestic businesses.
Because of the economic advantages enjoyed by large firms, metric conversion could hasten the current trend toward concentration of industry by a few large firms. It is difficult enough for Canadian-owned small business to avoid selling to foreign interests; we don't want to accelerate this process.
It could be that foreign firms which have had metric experience will have a head start on Canadian-owned small businesses which have not had metric

June 14, 1977

experience. It follows that the foreing-owned sector could increase its market share at the expense of Canadian-owned small business as part of the metrication process. For example, Canada already imports more than one half of its machinery and equipment. We don't want metrication just to create a larger market for machinery imports from other parts of the world, such as from Sweden and the European Common Market. Conversion could increase the costs of production and supply in Canada, placing Canadian-produced products at even a greater disadvantage in the Canadian market. One objective of the Federation is to get Canadian-owned small business through the metrication process without financial hardship so that Canada will not only import less of its machinery and products, but will, in fact, be increasingly world competitive and export oriented.
Let me say at this point that we are all agreed on the advantages of the S.I. system. It is easier to learn; it makes calculations easier; it provides a truly universal measurement system, and simplifies world trade. If all countries go S.I., Canada must go S.I.
The number of production components should be standardized and be reduced and there should be a reduction in the number of product sizes. Lower production costs and reduced inventory investments are potential, long-term benefits. It has been said that the entire automobile industry in the U.S., for example, could save $500 million if all fasteners (nuts, bolts etc.) were standardized and the number of sizes limited. Sad to say, the automobile industry also provides a classic case of a botched changeover. Ford, in the United Kingdom, manufactured metric parts in both Germany and Great Britain. When it came time to put them together on the assembly line, they did not match. Ford could absorb the mistake because of its size and market position. A small business would not get a second chance, and a miscalculation of this magnitude could mean instant ruin.
Let's be blunt. We simply do not know the implications of metric change-over for Canada and we certainly do not know all the ramifications of the changeover for the small business community. The Metric Commission has said that a loss of trade will result if metrication is introduced in Canada. While this may well be true, let's get the facts. The world will still want our wheat and non-renewable resources. Where is the concrete evidence concerning the loss of exports that might develop because products are not designed or manufactured in Canada in metric units? What sections of our manufacturing industry will be affected? How many small manufacturers will be affected?
Because of the complexity of metric conversion, no country in the world, including Canada, undertook a detailed cost-benefit analysis of metric conversion. In the short-run, conversion will have to contribute to cost-push inflation Higher prices will come about for two reasons: real cost increases and attempts by some businesses to exploit metrication in order to raise prices more than necessary. Adverse consumer reaction and resistance in England has forced a reassessment of the planning and scheduling of the conversion process. The same thing could happen in Canada.
We tend to favour a co-ordinated national program in which no one is left behind. Large companies have the technical, Financial and managerial resources for planning their own metric change-over and dealing with it over the long haul. Small businesses do not possess these resources and it is the responsibility of government to ensure that small businessmen, including self-employed craftsmen, are properly informed and their interests adequately understood and represented. Service and retail firms will have retraining problems with employees, including mechanics, television repairmen and a host of others. To avoid burdening the small businessman with retraining costs, the metric system will have to be incorporated in all vocational and on-the-job training programs and special forms of technical assistance or government support provided.
During the changeover, many businesses will have to carry dual inventories, both metric and standard, until consumers have fully accepted the S.I. system. An increase in inventory does not necessarily mean an increase in sales. Unless higher prices can be passed on to consumers, small firms will face a profit and financing squeeze. Consider hardware or building supply stores, stationery stores and other types of retailers who carry products that obviously involve metric change-over problems. A normal inventory of $100,000 might have to be increased to $125,000. How will the higher inventories be financed? The banks are often unable to provide adequate financing as it is, with small business inventories swollen by inflation. Metric conversion would make things worse.
Large firms do not have the same borrowing problems as small firms. In fact, branch plants in Canada, under the umbrella of their large foreign parent, will
Metric System
be at a decided advantage over Canadian independents in financing their conversion to metric.
We recommend that the federal government establish a program of grants and low-interest loans to small and medium-size businesses to assist in the financing of metric conversion. Such a program would be established by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and would be administered by the new Federal Business Development Bank.
I do not suggest that it be established by the minister responsible for small business because I do not think he has enough money in his kitty.
In many cases, small firms have been dependent on the purchase of used machinery to minimize their capital investments. There will obviously not be as many S.I. used machines on the market, creating higher initial capital costs. Small firms must be warned against purchasing new or used equipment that will not be usable over the long-term. In the current business downturn, there may be opportunities to buy ends of lines or other equipment which would seem bargain-priced, although these could become useless under an S.I. change-over. Small businessmen must be warned of these dangers.
We are not yet certain which sectors of the business community will be most affected. Pharmaceutical and chemical industries are mostly metric. Makers and sellers of consumer oriented products such as packaged goods and clothing will be significantly affected. Those in manufacturing and electronics, as well as in engineering, architecture and building construction must be able to convert quickly and smoothly to avoid losing valuable sales and contracts. We do know that printers, photographers, book publishers and others in the graphics field will be concerned with machinery and paper-size problems which have not yet been fully resolved at the international level. Firms using lathes, punches, drills, presses, manufacturing equipment, tool and die equipment and scales will be particularly concerned in the change-over cost problem.
Small businessmen are extremely dependent on the ready availability of standard parts and supplies and could lose business if change-over is not orderly. Large firms can force dependent suppliers to convert to metric before they are ready to do so, and such problems must be avoided.
Legislation at the federal and provincial levels will require amendments to accommodate the new system of measurement. This process of amendment could result in a reduction of overlapping legislation at the federal and provincial levels. However, small business will have to be vigilant to ensure that the civil servants do not use metrication as an excuse to bring in omnibus bills with fundamental changes in legislation.
Many small retailers such as grocers and butchers use scales. Presumably, some method of changing existing scales will be created to avoid the cost of purchasing new scales. If this is not done precisely, an accidental shortchanging or miscalculation in weight could invoke government law. As you know, you can be convicted even if you didn't intend to break the law concerning food and drugs or certain other legislation governing retailing. The government must ensure that a violation of the law is not triggered by an accidental shortweighting or other errors resulting from metric conversion.
Metrication can also provide opportunities for the entrepreneur. The challenge of change will be met by enterprising Canadian businessmen who move quickly to take advantage of the need for new products created by metrication.
Once the change-over begins, the government will undoubtedly institute a "buy-metric" policy. If so, the government will have to ensure that small firms do not lose out where high change-over costs are involved. The purchasing power of the federal and provincial governments is potentially one of the major weapons available to assist the development of Canadian-owned companies.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired. He may continue only with unanimous consent. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I only have another page and a half here to put on record. I am sorry the minister

June 14, 1977
Metric System
was not here earlier. He was the one who said we had not received letters from western Canada. One of the letters to which I referred was addressed to the minister, dated February 7, 1977, and apparently he has not yet received it. Maybe that is the fault of the Postmaster General (Mr. Blais).
Since the metric change-over is a federal policy initiative, we would think that the federal government would be responsible for the resulting problems and costs. However, the provinces may wish to be involved in assisting in the change-over process and the division of responsibility must be made clear. Small business must know where to go for information and financial assistance.
Governments and the business community are waiting for the federal government to establish and announce their metric conversion policies and programs. It is difficult to expect provincial governments and business to begin metric change-over planning so long as there has been no bill or joint resolution before parliament. We are concerned that parliament has never passed metrication-enabling legislation. This means that the Metric Commission, which is essentially an advisory body for one government department, is now in practice implementing a program for the entire nation before the policy decisions have been fully approved at the parliamentary level. While we commend the initiative of those who recognize that metrication requires a great deal of lead time and effort, we are concerned that decisions are being made by administrators before the legislators have done their homework. The work of the Commission should receive parliamentary examination and sanction or approval, immediately.
At the moment, metric conversion will take place on a "costs will lie where they fall" basis. Many small businessmen will find that the costs are prohibitive and will be unable to accept this approach. A mood of co-operation could turn to one of political confrontation if there is not a strong leadership initiative shown by those concerned in planning, scheduling and implementing the metric conversion program for Canada.
The joint resolution or bill which is to be introduced in parliament must contain a statement to the effect that appropriate means, financial and otherwise, will be found to help small business absorb the impact of metric changeover. Change-over dates are now being set. Committees are springing up all over the country. The metrication train has left the station. We must ensure that small business is on the train and that the cost of its ticket is not prohibitive.
Our members have approved the change-over to metrication, in principle. The Federation will attempt to be flexible in its approach. We will study metrication on a continuing basis to reflect the reaction of the small business community as the problems and costs become clarified. Pre-planning and involvement are necessary. A well defined, co-ordinated conversion program is essential, financial and technical assistance must be provided to the small firms that will need it.
That is my contribution to this debate, Mr. Speaker. I should just like to add that the reaction we are getting to the government's "hard sell" approach in connection with metrication reminds me of what happened back in 1968 when bilingualism was such a beautiful thing in western Canada. They sent out a former minister by the name of Mr. Pelletier, I think it was, to sell the program to our people, instead of sending out someone like Jean-Luc Pepin, a man with some knowledge of selling. He would not have attempted such a "hard-sell" of a beautiful language like French. It was not needed. Similarly, the government is trying to shove this down our throats and, one day, it will regret what it is doing.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have not taken part in the debate up to this point

directly, that is-but I can assure Your Honour that, like other members of parliament, I have been deeply involved in seeking to interpret what the government is trying to do in its posthaste flight to metrication. It is an approach which has raised a great deal of controversy because the government has failed to

consult with the people and give the grass roots farmer a chance to be heard on the subject.
At the outset, therefore, I want to say that I support the amendment which is before the House at this third reading stage to refer the bill back to committee. I do not think there is any better way of getting the purport of legislation across to the people when controversy has arisen. The hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski), who preceded me in the debate, read a series of letters showing that substantial and thoughtful controversy has arisen because of the government's failure to relate to the people. Referring this bill back to committee would provide an opportunity to convey necessary information and allay the fears which are in the minds of the farming community. It would allow time for the completion of the educational process which was neglected in the initial stages of the debate.
I am sure members will agree with me that this is not the only controversial measure which has been brought forward by the government. There has been more controversy in the past ten years than in all the previous 16 years during which I have been a member of the House of Commons. I am just completing 26 years here and I think I have had to deal with more letters of complaint, more protests expressing the unhappiness of the Canadian people, particularly in western Canada, of course, because that covers the area I represent, in the past five years than in all my previous time as a member of the House. This is because the government is bureaucratic, even authoritarian in so many of its activities.
As a matter of fact, this tendency was well described in a book which was published some years ago under the title "Trudeaucracy". What this implies is initiative in government action, legislative or otherwise, which has no consideration for the impact of changes on people or institutions, of increased costs to the small business community and so on. It is significant that the Minister of State (Small Business) (Mr. Mar-chand) should be in charge of the legislation. He is aware there is great protest with regard to it in the small business community.
As desirable as the process of metrication may be in the long run, it is not going to be achieved overnight. The agricultural industry, which is of basic importance to the well-being of the western community, is based on the Torrens system of land survey and farmers will not allow this to pass without considerable protest. The government and the minister are looking for an opportunity to save face. The Minister of State for Small Business (Mr. Marchand), stood up in this House and said that they were going to delay the proclamation of this legislation even though it is going to be passed. That was a belated attempt to save face on the part of the government, arising from the strong waves of protest. Even so insensitive a group as the present government has begun to appreciate it.
While I have not taken part in the debate hitherto, I have heard excellent speeches which have brought the points home on all the previous stages of the discussion. However, I have
June 14, 1977

been involved in the debate at the local community level. Delegations of concerned farmers have come to me and expressed their concerns. I travelled with the official opposition agricultural committee when we interviewed the grain industry some weeks ago. I was amazed at the intensity of the feeling of disillusionment of the Canadian Grain Metric Conversion Commission. They felt they had been led down the garden path by the government as well. They lashed out at the opposition as being responsible for the delay. In the course of the discussions we had that particular afternoon, it was revealed that they were not even aware that legislation was necessary, and the government had delayed action on it until it was impossible to get it through by the effective target date which was originally put before the people of Canada, and particularly the farmers.
When we had our meetings with the western representatives of the farmers in the grain industry, it was evident that they also felt they had been led down the garden path too. They said that they had already expended some $300,000. I am referring to the Manitoba Pool in this instance, and the United Grain Growers. They have already expended some $300,000 in preparing for metrication of the agricultural industry. This was just a drop in the bucket compared to the costs they anticipated spending.
There are various hidden costs which have given rise to the concerns and protests as the people who will be affected by this program become aware of the difficulties arising from the lack of consultation, the lack of planning, and the lack of suitable preparation by the Liberal government. They were not even aware that there was a legislative requirement necessary. It seems the government was not aware that it would have to go through the legislative gambit before this part of the metrication program could be approved. It came up at the annual meeting of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and precipitated such acrimonious debate that the whole matter was unresolved and was left in abeyance until further information was made available.
The most violent and strongest reaction has come from the farmers themselves. They feel this is change for the sake of change. They are not convinced it will do anything to improve the efficiency of the grain industry or expand the market. As a matter of fact the grain industry in western Canada is one of the most productive and efficient operations in the country today. If they had not been able to increase productivity by initiative and innovation, they would not have been able to survive in the cost-price squeeze market which has been generated by the half-baked disastrous economic policies of the government.
It is said that the farming community is against change. This can be easily refuted by the progressive action with respect to mechanization, innovation and new ideas in the whole agricultural industry, which has made it possible for farmers to survive, even though their costs have increased astronomically and the prices they receive for their products have been increasing at a much slower rate.
Metric System
I will not read the many letters of protest I have received from farmers. This has been done by several spokesmen in this debate. The Minister of State for Small Business suggested there were no letters coming in. That has been well refuted by the previous speaker, the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski).


Mr. Marchand:: We have received 50 or 60 letters in total.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I hear the hon. minister admitting that he has received 50 or 60 letters in total.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: From Kamloops.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Considering the problems of the Post Office, that is quite an interesting number of letters.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: How many have got lost in the mail?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: As we have been demonstrating from time to time in the House by specific experiments which have been conducted by various groups, including the members of the press gallery and the members of the city council of Toronto, not all the mail gets through which is placed in the trust of the Post Office.
With respect to the government's unseemly haste in implementing this legislation, I was amazed by the differences of opinion which arose between experts in the government of Manitoba and experts on the Wheat Board. The disagreement as to the terminology has been placed on the record by hon. members. It was a disagreement with the terminology which would be applied to the agricultural industry, if metrication were mutually acceptable.
The Manitoba government from the outset co-operated with the federal government in trying to meet the original deadline for implementing metrication. It was amazed to find that the Wheat Board, and particularly the commission under the Wheat Board with respect to metric conversion, had not decided specifically on the terminology that would be used in its application to the grain industry and in the lands survey system. The government finally made a belated response, and it was interesting that the information was conveyed by the Minister of State (Small Business) shortly after the transfer of allegiance of the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Horner). It is obvious that at long last someone from western Canada managed to get the message through to the upper echelons of power in the Liberal cabinet.
If the government really wants to indicate that it has had a change of heart and recognizes what its new recruit has been saying, to the effect that this is violently opposed by western Canada, then it must go further than merely offering to delay implementation of the legislation. The legislation must go back to the drawing board. Farmers have to be given a chance to be heard if metrication is to be introduced smoothly, as it could have been had the government not run roughshod over the farming and small business community.

June 14, 1977
Metric System
I have a final word of advice for the government, Mr. Speaker. If it had followed the policy adopted by the United States government with respect to metrication, it would have found it effective. There is an old saying, "It is not what you do, it is the way you do it." In a democracy you cannot proceed by coercion, authoritarianism, or the techniques all too frequently used in this Trudeaucracy. You must move by persuasion, by education, and without compulsion if you are to carry public opinion. The government must recognize this. It realizes now that it is in trouble and is trying to get out of the difficulty.
The approach of the government is almost like the sort of thing you find in what has been described as benign despotism or a benevolent dictatorship where the government knows better what is good for the people than do the people themselves. This has got it into difficulty in such matters as metrication. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) himself says that the system of government he feels most comfortable with is a benign despotism.
I urge the government to accept the amendment and return the legislation to the committee. The farmer realizes he has been misled, so does the grain industry, and the Metric commission. Even the Manitoba government feels it has been led down the garden path. We tried to give the government a way out, a face-saving device, by introducing an amendment which would provide a dual system for the phasing in period, but it was voted down. Again we tried in a positive, constructive way, to make it feasible for this legislation to proceed and to remove the growing protest in the farming community by introducing a three year transition period amendment which was proposed by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton). That was also turned down, and so the government has missed the opportunity to provide ample time for an information and education program.
The government claims that it is going to delay implementation of the legislation. This is like an incubus hanging over the heads of farmers. Why does the government not start as it should have, by letting the farmers be heard and taking the bill back to committee? This is the democratic way to proceed. We must get away from this order in council, authoritarian, Trudeaucratic approach practised by the government.


Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to support the amendment which would refer Bill C-23 back to committee and thus give members and farmers an opportunity to express their views. I believe the answers given to the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) on May 3 as reported at pages 5226-5227 of Hansard are the most incredible statements that have been made in this House for some time.
What particularly bothers me is that when this bill was before the committee, representatives of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture appeared before it and, at the same time down the street, at the Chateau Laurier, a farm group was meeting. When this matter was brought up on the floor at that meeting it was such a hot issue that the chairman tabled it so that there would be no further discussion and they could get on

with other business. In other words, a tremendous amount of resentment was shown by the farmers who said they did not agree in particular with the land measure. Representatives of the Metric Commission and the CFA were telling a committee of this House at that very moment that the vast majority of farmers agreed totally with metric conversion and asked us to get on with it.
The matter of land measure is the crux of the whole problem. I do not know why the minister and his advisers have not decided to allow it to go back to committee, or why they have not accepted the numerous suggestions put forward on this side of the House.
Replying to the hon. member for Vegreville on May 3 as reported at page 5227 of Hansard, the Minister of State (Small Business) (Mr. Marchand) said:
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.
We offered the suggestion that the matter be referred back to committee for further consideration of grains and land measure in particular. From the lack of response, obviously nothing is going to be done.
There are several variations of metric measure used in other countries. There is the French metric, the Japanese metric, the Australian metric, and the British metric. In Great Britain, after consultation with the European Economic Community, they have decided to retain miles, acres, pints, and also miles-per-hour on the roads.
The commission is telling members of parliament that everybody is in agreement with this, but yet we find that the metro Toronto transportation committee has turned back a budget item of $80,000 intended to convert municipal speed and bridge clearance signs to metric. When you go across the country and talk to people in any municipal area, you find that they are at a loss as to when the change will be made and who will pay for it.
Many countries have retained measurement terms that, if changed, would cause some confusion, but in Canada we have this pious, uninformed group of people in the Metric Commission, who are basically idea peddlers, who think they know best what is best for Canadians and who, by their actions, have misled parliament. That is a matter that clearly upsets me.
As a member of the committee dealing with metric conversion I have received numerous telephone calls from people in the Metric Commission. At one time a member of the commission berated me for daring to criticize some action of the commission. I have had at least 15 phone calls from people on the Canada Grains Council telling me that we were the ones who were holding up the legislation. They told me that we were going to cause the economic collapse of the grain industry in western Canada, that we were misinformed, that all the farmers in western Canada were wholeheartedly in support of this. Then we learned that, quite to the contrary, they were not. So the matter has not been thoroughly dealt with, and it
June 14, 1977

could have been thoroughly dealt with because in the months preceding the month of June we had ample time to study the whole matter. The government has in its hands the power to introduce legislation, and this matter was pulled in and out several times but was never dealt with in a straightforward fashion.
The Metric Commission is one of the many disaster areas in this government. They have a massive turnover of staff. The sector chairmen change rapidly. When you go out and talk to some of the people in industry who have been sector chairmen, you find that some of them have been in that position for one meeting only, that they got nowhere or could not stand the proceedings, and resigned, that then another sector chairman was appointed, and another one following him. There is little direction or co-ordination on the Metric Commission. The small business sector is not represented on the commission. The people who are heading the sector commissions are from big business, not from the medium size or small business sectors. The reason is that people in that area cannot afford in may cases to take time to become involved in the metric debate.
What we seem to have in the Metric Commission is a gang of innovative bureaucrats and idea peddlers who feel they are entitled to inflict on the people of this country their ideas which they believe are in our best interests, and for some reason this in Canada is known as democracy.
Take the example of how decisions are taken. There is, for example, an association called the North American Fastener Association. These people have got together and have decided, in their consideration of metric conversion, to use a 12 star bolt head as a standard. Now a 12 sided bolt head may be a great idea for the production line with special power tools, but in effect it means that those in the repair field, or the farmer, will have great difficulty salvaging a bolt and nut for use again. This is the sort of thing that is taking place. That matter has never been brought up before parliament or a committee of the House, and it is not mentioned in any of the metric reports. It is something that is being done by a small group of manufacturers which will have a dramatic effect on the conduct of the machinery business in north America.
We, as members of parliament, have no input into the Metric Commission. We can, along with the examination of the spending estimates of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, see them on an annual basis, but that means a member of parliament would have to disregard all other items in the department's spending estimates and spend his ten, 15 or 20 minutes of questioning strictly on the matter of metric conversion. Given the structure of the committee system in parliament, it is a totally inadequate way to deal with this matter.
The arrogance of the Metric Commission is legendary. They have only produced three annual reports, and the last one was ten months late. We had Metric Commission officials before our caucus finance committee in 1974. Their representation to us was to put on the screen a map of Canada. They had the
Metric System
capital of Manitoba listed as Edmonton and the capital of Alberta listed as Winnipeg.


An hon. Member:: Shame!


William James Kempling: Surely that illustrates the stupidity of the people who put that presentation together. When we pointed it out to them, they laughed; they thought it was a great joke. That shows the insensitivity of these people.
What the Metric Commission is doing, with the full agreement of the government, is to proceed with an incomplete program that is costing millions of dollars. The cost to date amounts to $19,823,477 which will be spent on the Metric Commission's activities from its inception to the end of 1978. I think the people of this country have a right to ask what they are getting for this money.
The members of the Metric Commission continue to display their arrogance by showing lack of information and by not meeting with the parliamentary committee. I have said many times in committee that there is no reason in the world why we cannot have an annual meeting with the Metric Commission, spread over two or three days if necessary, to review their progress. But they like to hide behind the estimates, and they have few people there to answer questions. They do not submit their reports to parliament on time, and they have done very little to co-ordinate the whole metric program.
We have asked time and time again that a bill be brought in to deal with the metric program in its entirety. As a matter of fact at one stage the minister of industry, trade and commerce of the day said that he did not know what to put in the bill if a bill were brought forward. He said he would be glad to receive suggestions from us. We sent him a letter giving him a whole list of suggestions on how to draft a bill dealing with metric conversion, but of course they were not accepted. The whole approach to this is wrong.
There is no doubt that metric conversion in time will be brought about, but there are different ways of handling it. In the United States, for instance, they are handling land measurements quite differently from us. In a letter which we have from their committee on science and technology this is what they say:
The matter of land measurements was specifically discussed in our committee hearings. Land measurement was frequently given as an example where there would be very little advantage to be gained from making the change-over and where the costs of doing so would be entirely out of proportion to any possible gains. It was also noted that in the State of Louisiana land measurements continue to be made in the old French measurements, a leftover from the days when France colonized that part of the continent. The same applies to Spanish land measurements in California. In neither of these cases has it been found 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.
In regard to possible change-over 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 change-over. I have made inquiries with officers of the Board of Trade, and their position is that if any of the commodity trading organizations individually decide on their own to change to the Metric System, the Board would accept such a
6660

June 14, 1977
Metric System
change for that industry. However, the Board itself would not impose such a change on their members.
That is how the Americans are handling it. I have said that there are several variations to the metric measure in various countries in the world. Many countries have retained the terms of measure which would, if changed, cause confusion among the public. However, in Canada we seem to be pressing this matter with no apparent direction.
To my mind the Metric Commission has not fulfilled its mandate under the order in council dealing with powers and purposes. Specifically, the order in council instructs the Commission to initiate, co-ordinate and undertake investigations, surveys and studies relating to the metric system in different sectors of the Canadian economy. I charge that the Metric Commission, as established under Order in Council P.C. 19711146 dated June 10, 1971, has failed to carry out clause (A) of the section on powers and purposes. The evidence is before this House in the reply of the Minister of State (Small Business) as set out on pages 5226 and 5227 of Hansard for April 3 of this year. My charge is proved as well by the process of this bill. In spite of the strong suggestions from hon. members on this side of the House, the Metric Commission has misled the minister, the committee and this House. It has swept aside the arguments put forward in the committee and in this House regarding land measure, and swept aside the argument put forward by the Consumers Association of Canada regarding packaging and the listing of dual weights or measures on packages.
On the advice of the Commission the government voted down amendments which would have put some sense into Bill C-23. One of the very real dangers this country is facing is that we are being ruled more and more by regulation, boards, and commissions. By their very structure they are subverting the rule of parliament. The actions of the government in this bill are a true example of that subversion. There are nameless, faceless people who put in place regulations which have the force of statute. They have never been placed before the Parliament of Canada for debate. This country is really being run by a small group of people, in relation to the total population, who are not elected by the people. They have powers which are far beyond those of parliament. They have the power to change the market system, the economy of Canada and social life in Canada, and they interfere in the private lives of Canadians. They have the power to make regulations which have the force of statute, and they do not answer to the people of Canada through parliament. I think that is a terrible way to run a commission or this parliament.
I have talked to Canadians in the electrical industry and to some of their American counterparts. I asked the Americans how they were proceeding with their metric conversion and why they were taking the route they were taking. They told me that the only reason they are converting to metric is because we are doing so in Canada. The members of the Metric Commission travel across the country periodically speaking with industrial groups, and there are panels. The Commission loves to say that the cost of metric conversion will not be high. The commission implies that industry is going to absorb the
[Mr. Kempling.j
cost because it is going to get great benefits from conversion. People in industry tell us that they are not going to absorb the cost and that the cost will be passed on to the consumer. The consumer is going to pay for metric conversion, and let there be no doubt about that.
I have talked to the small business community, and I know the minister has as well. He has not seen fit, however, to do very much in this bill for that community. It remains to be seen whether the Metric Commission is going to do anything for that community. However, small business is not included in the process of metric conversion at all.
I do not know how many ministers have dealt with this matter. Perhaps there have been three, four or five, but at various meetings the Commission has been told to get the small business community involved in this because some of the claims small business is making are not true. It is just that some small businessmen are misinformed. They should be involved in this process. All this is done on a "you pay your own expense" basis, and we think that some of these sector heads and chairmen should be drawn from the small business community, brought into the process, and asked to get involved in metric conversion.
In closing, I urge the minister to support this amendment. I think this matter should go back to the committee and be discussed thoroughly. We should have an opportunity, if necessary, to travel and to meet some farm groups because we are being told by the Canadian Grains Council and by a few other high-powered groups-and we learned from the Globe and Mail the other morning that many from these groups are government appointees-that they are going to toe the line wherever required. They are not necessarily going to convey the true thoughts of the people who are going to bear the costs of this and who are going to have to work with it. I think the committee should have the opportunity to hear witnesses again and to satisfy itself and the people involved about the difficulty which will be faced. Having done that, I think we could proceed with the bill in an orderly way. I support the amendment to refer this bill back to the committee for further consideration of the matters outlined in the amendment.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, just before the debate on this matter closes I want to join with the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth (Mr. Kempling) in urging that the government see the propriety of this amendment. This amendment is not meant to hold up the bill in any way; it would simply refer clauses 2, 6, 8 and 10 of Bill C-23 back to the committee. It would put some substance into the words of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien) and the Minister of State (Small Business) (Mr. Marchand), and there would in fact be some real consultation with the producers of the country.
Consultation is most important. In several instances in the last six months-I will not go into detail although I can be specific, if the hon. member opposite wishes-the government
June 14, 1977

promised various organizations, groups and people interested in legislation this House passes, to engage in consultation. That consultation has not taken place. That is too bad, and is a style of politics I call un-Canadian.
I said, when raising a point of order in the course of this debate, that it is questionable parliamentary practice for the government to ask the House to pass a bill which it will not implement or use until such time as there has been "consultation"-I put that word in quotation marks. If the government wants to engage in meaningful consultation, let it change its approach. Let it allow such consultation to take place. Therefore I say, why not send this bill back to the appropriate committee, where these clauses can be studied? Such committee, predominantly but not exclusively made up of parliamentarians from western Canada, could go out in this country and listen to men and women who may feel this bill will affect them adversely. Really, that is the intent of the amendment, and it is not unreasonable to ask members on the government side to support it.
After that process of consultation has taken place and any changes proposed have been made to the bill, it should be brought back to this House, here to be dealt with. Surely that is not unreasonable. Knowing the attitude of westerners and how they view the actions of the government, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton), seconded by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers), proposed an amendment. In so doing they highlighted a matter of great concern to the producers of western Canada.
Is it too much to ask, in the last days of this parliament, that the standing committee of the House, the appropriate committee mentioned, should have a reference from the House for the purpose of undertaking the kind of consultation I mentioned? Is asking for such consultation asking too much? I do not think so. All of us, westerners included, can judge for ourselves to what extent consultation has taken place. On the one hand we hear much talk of consultation; on the other hand we see little evidence of it.
This bill will hang like the sword of Damocles over those who will be affected by it. Unless the bill is amended, producers could be adversely affected. People will say of the government, "No matter what you say, we know what you intend to do". And they will say it, mark my words.
This parliament stands for something, Mr. Speaker. It is a representative body. Though there is much good in the bureaucracy of the country, no body of people in this country is as representative of all our people, and as sensitive to their wishes, as the Parliament of Canada. And no committee of this House perhaps is as sensitive to the needs of western agriculture, and as aware of the justified and unjustified fears and apprehensions of those involved in agriculture, as the Standing Committee on Agriculture of this House. I therefore ask all members of the House to support the amendment, the purpose of which is to allow a standing committee of this House to engage in consultations which are so necessary. We must engage in those consultations if we are to reach some sem-
Melric System
blance of understanding between the various regions and areas of the country.
For the last ten years the confrontationist style of the government has plagued the country. Sometimes such a style is justified; more often it is not. Surely it is not justified in legislation of this kind. Surely we should not pass such legislation immediately, or should not pass it until people understand it. I hope the government will not proceed in this manner with regard to this serious bill, although past precedent might lead one to think that it will. If so, it shows that the government's attitude to this country is most unhealthy.


Steve Eugene Paproski: They like to divide and conquer.


Walter David Baker: If the government were to adopt our suggestion and accept the amendment, it could reverse the growing trend of opinion in the country regarding the actions of the government. It can do this simply by agreeing to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain and seconded by the hon. member for Red Deer.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment? All those in favour of the amendment will please
say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare the amendment lost.
The question therefore is on the motion of Mr. Marchand for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien) that Bill C-23, to facilitate conversion to the metric system of measurement, be now read the third time and do pass.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner).]


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of matters that I would like to raise. Six o'clock is approaching, and I am now prepared to begin the debate, if necessary, but I wonder if the government House leader could indicate to us what business he plans for this evening and anything else he would like to say.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I intend to continue with third reading of the bill for the rest of the day, if necessary. If third reading is disposed of, then I will consult with my colleagues as to which of the bills we would take at eight o'clock.


STATUTE LAW (METRIC CONVERSION) AMENDMENT ACT, 1976 AMENDMENTS TO WHEAT BOARD ACT TO FACILITATE CONVERSION TO METRIC SYSTEM
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Marchand (for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce) that Bill C-23, to facilitate conversion to the metric system of measurement, be read the third time and do pass.
Mr. Speaker:: I take it that the sense of the House is to debate the bill on third reading. Perhaps we should call it six o'clock. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, there is no point in calling it six o'clock because I have a lot to say on this bill. It is two minutes to six.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Government members are all going out to join the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner).


Some hon. Members:: Where is Horner?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this occasion with a great deal of disappointment because we thought we were dealing with the minister in good faith. He undertook in the House to consult the producers of this country about the application of this measure. He also indicated he would be prepared to consult the opposition parties and all members of the House to determine what might be the best mechanism for engaging in that consultative process. In the amendment on which we have just voted the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) put forth a logical and well reasoned suggestion which he thought the minister would be eager to accept, namely, to refer the bill back to committee for the purpose of allowing the formal consultative process to take place. We feel very strongly about the fact that if there is to be a thorough consultative process, it
June 14, 1977

should take place with the producers who are most seriously affected by this legislation.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member who, I know, will continue with vigour at eight o'clock this evening but, for the moment, in accordance with Standing Order 40 and with our revised procedures for this month on additional hours of sitting, we will proceed to the adjournment debate.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, recently there have been confusing reports appearing in the Winnipeg press in regard to the Deer Lodge Veterans Hospital. These news stories concerning the possible transfer of Deer Lodge Hospital from the federal government to the province of Manitoba have only served further to confuse and worry the veterans and employees of that hospital. The confusing reports on Deer Lodge Hospital do not do anything to answer the serious concerns of the veterans, veterans organizations and the employees of Deer Lodge Hospital. I contend there are far too many serious concerns that have not been answered by the government in regard to the future of Deer Lodge Hospital while they have dragged on the negotiations.
From the veterans' point of view there are such serious matters as the quality of health care for veterans should the hospital be taken over by the province of Manitoba, whether veterans will receive priority at the hospital, and indeed, whether the same special care for veterans will remain. From the employees' point of view, there are such things as staff pensions, job security, wages and staff size.
I am speaking about Deer Lodge Hospital today to request that if the federal government and the province of Manitoba do reach an agreement on the Deer Lodge Hospital, under no circumstances should the agreement be signed right away. The agreement should be referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs so that all the concerns of the veterans and employees might be thoroughly looked into. I am sure that veterans' organizations such as the Royal Canadian Legion, the Army, Navy and Air Force veterans and others have concerns and suggestions to offer on the future of Deer Lodge. I am also sure that the employees' union at Deer Lodge have
Adjournment Debate
representations to make on behalf of the employees. The agreement should not be signed until a satisfactory arrangement has been worked out in the best interests of the veterans and employees of Deer Lodge Hospital.
I feel that referring the matter to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs would give veterans the opportunity to express their ideas and concerns on such matters as the quality of care after provincial governments have assumed control of veterans' hospitals.
On February 28 of this year the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) said in this House in reference to the transfer of veterans' hospitals to the provinces:
The ones we have transferred so far have been quite successful and we are reasonably pleased with the treatment the veterans are receiving. We get this reaction from the veterans' organizations and we also get it from the veterans themselves.
If that is the case, I wonder why, then, did every member of parliament receive a letter from the Veterans' Rights Association of British Columbia expressing serious concern over the former veterans' hospital in Victoria? For the record I should like to quote that letter. The letter, addressed to all members of parliament, reads:
On behalf of our membership we would like to make you aware of the problems created for veterans on Vancouver Island through the operation and administration of the former veterans hospital in Victoria.
We can assure you that, should the DVA facility in or near your region be transferred to a provincial or community authority, your veteran constituents will receive a lesser standard of care and a derogation of their rights under the veterans charter.
Believe us when we say that assurances of and from the federal government are not worth a farthing.
The takeover here has been handled by deceit and a complete lack of concern and comprehension, especially by the Minister of Veterans Affairs and his deputy minister.
May we remind you that the sense of comradeship and duty, hardened in the furnace of war, has not left the veterans, even though they are thought to be a tiny minority and have lived on into an age when numbers and votes, pressure groups and self seekers, sensation and scandal drowns the small voice of those who served selflessly and faithfully.
Accordingly, at a general meeting, this association passed the following resolutions which we would ask that you support:
A.	That the Government of Canada guarantee that the veterans treatment regulations be applied equally across Canada.
B.	That the Government of Canada reaffirm the veterans charter.
C.	That the province of British Columbia will administer treatment regulations as if they were so obliged by law.
D.	That Canada and British Columbia re-negotiate the transfer agreement entered into to give effect to the intent of the agreement, and
E.	That, inter alia, veterans have a greater, and not nominal, representation on DVA hospitals' boards of directors.
This letter was signed by F. C. P. Foy, Executive Director of the Veterans' Rights Association of B.C. That letter covers the types of things the veterans in the area served by Deer Lodge Hospital are worried about. These problems can be avoided by referring the whole matter to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs after an agreement has been negotiated. I believe the Royal Canadian Legion's Manitoba and northwestern Ontario command had the same concerns when it passed a

June 14, 1977
Adjournment Debate
resolution in June of 1975 opposing the transfer of Deer Lodge Hospital to Manitoba.
In the same vein, Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs should look into the problems the employees will face if such a transfer takes place.
If, on the other hand, it is not possible for the federal government and Manitoba to reach an agreement through negotiation on the Deer Lodge Hospital, then I would urge the federal government to drop the matter and continue operating the Deer Lodge Hospital. As the Minister of Veterans Affairs said on May 27, 1976:
If it becomes evident, however, that it is not possible to negotiate the transfer of these hospitals on satisfactory terms, we will proceed with our plans for modernization.
I hope the minister and the government will respect the needs of the veterans and employees at Deer Lodge Hospital.


Mr. S. Victor Railton (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it would be better to say nothing in reply to the letter the hon. member read, since I think it cannot be taken as correct.
With regard to the question concerning discussions between my department and the province of Manitoba pertaining to the transfer of Deer Lodge Hospital in Winnipeg, I must reiterate that there are no negotiations, as such, regarding the transfer. There have been some discussions and the purpose of this dialogue is more or less to determine if the province is interested and if things can be worked out to the satisfaction of all concerned.
The policy of transferring veterans' hospitals to local authorities is, as you know, based on the determination that veterans should receive the best possible hospital care. I would not attempt to go into the programs of hospital modernization, research, geriatric programs and a variety of others that come under the authority of this critical branch of veterans affairs. But I can say that the treatment services branch of my department devotes the most scrupulous attention to the changing needs of our veteran population.
It is my own belief-and I am speaking for the minister, Mr. Speaker-that the biggest benefit for the entitlement of veterans with service incurred disabilities has been the transfer of these hospitals and their continuing association with universities across Canada. This availability of health services could not be assured to entitled veterans under our own limited institutional operations. Our hospitals are slowly becoming nursing homes.
In addition to the guaranteed priority access beds for the care of disability pensioners there is in every transfer provision for priority access, after transfer, to all chronic and domiciliary beds. Transfer arrangements also, however, provide for the integration of our services with those of the community. Because of that, the particular arrangements that we negotiate on transfer may vary from province to province, depending on the level and availability of services in each province.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the parliamentary secretary but must inform him that his allotted time has expired.


PUBLIC SERVICE-REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION OF DISMISSAL OF JIRVAN SHAH
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, on May 25, 1977, 1 raised in this House the case of Mr. Jirvan B. Shah, a public servant employed by the public service of Canada until he was dismissed. I asked the government to investigate his dismissal, with a view to having him reinstated. A number of public servants have brought their cases to me, sir, but not one of them has affected me as much as Mr. Shah's.
I want the House to understand that he is a professional engineer, trained at Queen's University, Canada and he joined the public service in October, 1965, as a metallurgical engineer. He has been employed in that same position, doing that same work, for 11 years. Finally he was declared incompetent. For the first seven years of his employment his performance was rated as average. In March, 1973, his supervisor, Mr. T. W. Heaslip, rated his performance as unsatisfactory. As a result of this evaluation he requested a review committee to investigate his case. That review committee was comprised of Mr. H. A. Fawcett, chief accident investigations division, MOT, Mr. S. Grossmith, a test pilot and engineer at MOT, S. McCormach, a staffing officer with MOT, and N. Bura, a staffing officer of the Public Service Commission.
This review committee made a thorough investigation and heard evidence given by Mr. Shah and Mr. Heaslip. It concluded that he was competent, recommended that he be provided with alternate employment and that his performance be reassessed in six months. Part of that recommendation was implemented. Mr. Shah was employed in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, under the supervision of Dr. Eric Smith who, after a six month period, said Mr. Shah did his work adequately. It is important to remember that between 1965 and 1972 his position carried the title of metallurgical engineer.
From 1973 on, as a consequence of reorganization in the division, the title of the position was changed to material failure analyst without any change in the duties and responsibilities of the position. The job description has remained the same since 1965.
After that ten-month period in 1974, he returned to the Ministry of Transport and the same position. He received a very unsatisfactory appraisal for a four-month period by a new supervisor, Mr. McLeod, who only supervised him from April to July, 1973. In 1975 he received his last appraisal, which was unsatisfactory, by Mr. Logan who is classified as a technical inspector in aircraft mechanics/maintenance. This appraisal covered a nine-month period.

June 14, 1977

On May 27, 1976, the Ministry of Transport wrote to the Public Service Commission recommending his release on the grounds of incompetence, pursuant to section 31 of the Public Service Employment Act. After 11 years on the same job he was labelled incompetent. That smacks of something wrong.
There was an appeal to the Public Service Commission appeal board. The appeal board chairman, Ms. Brazier, stated that the recommendation should be upheld. At the hearing, the Ministry of Transport relied on the three unsatisfactory appraisals and three lab reports written by Mr. Shah. His legal representative called five witnesses who all declared that he was competent. They were professional witnesses. However, the appeal board did not give much weight to that evidence.
He appealed ultimately to the Federal Court of Canada. However, he found he could not deal with that court because the Federal Court of Canada had no jurisdiction.
After 11 years service in the public service of Canada, he finds himself living on unemployment insurance. What does he ask of this House and this ministry? He asks for his immediate reinstatement. Failing that, he asks that he be placed in some other employment.
Very few people in the public service are dealt with in the way this man was dealt with. Most of all, he asks on behalf of public servants everywhere that there be some access for the public service for redress in another forum so that a man in that position can at least have redress through the courts. We do not have that now in the public service of Canada.
Mr. Shah told me that he has been discriminated against. His nameplate was removed from his office door and affixed to the washroom door. A poster was made of his likeness with the words "Wanted-dead or alive, preferably dead" and displayed on the bulletin board. He was forbidden to use the telephone. He could not make or receive calls.
Mr. Shah was required to submit to a psychiatric examination. They found no problem. He was cursed and sworn at by his superiors. He was denied the same training opportunities as others. He was not allowed to attend a Christmas party. I do not know whether that had anything to do with the fact that Mr. Shah is not white, but Mr. Shah could be forgiven if he was led to believe that some of the things he told me occurred to him happened for that reason. Mr. Shah went to the anti-discrimination appeal board. They held that, although he was harassed, he was not discriminated against. You tell me the difference, Mr. Speaker.
That is why I raised this question in the House of Commons. I raise it again today so that this man who gave 11 years of faithful service to the public service in this country, trained in a Canadian university, can have himself reinstated somewhere in the public service rather than be forced to go out and do menial work, which is the future that faces him if there is no redress from this House and this government.


Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, here is the information that we have gathered for the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker).
Adjournment Debate
Mr. Shah, a failures analyst in the air administration of the Department of Transport, had a long history of unacceptable performance, notably in the planning, organizing and analyzing aspects of his job. Because they formed such an important part of the job of failures analyst and since training and counselling had failed to bring about any improvement, it was decided to recommend his release for incompetence.
Mr. Shah's case was examined by a departmental review committee. The decision to terminate his employment was not disputed. The review committee, composed of public servants of considerable ability, recommended that alternate acceptable employment be sought.
Next, Mr. Shah appealed the decision. Following a two-day, 13-hour hearing, the appeal was dismissed. The case was then referred to the Federal Court of Appeal which ruled that the decision of the appeal board was valid.
Mr. Shah then complained to the anti-discrimination branch of the Public Service Commission and an investigation was conducted. It was concluded that discrimination was not a factor in his release.
Sincere efforts have been made both by the Department of Transport and the Public Service Commission to find alternative employment for Mr. Shah but without success.
Mr. Shah did not receive any severance pay upon his release as his collective agreement gives the employer no discretion in this regard. His superannuation contributions are "locked in" until age 65 under the provisions of the superannuation act. It would require an amendment to the act to release these funds.
While we can understand the difficult circumstances in which Mr. Shah finds himself, the Department of Transport and the Public Service Commission are satisfied that he was treated fairly and that he was given ample opportunity to have all the facts of his case reviewed.


TRANSPORT-RAIL SERVICE IN ATLANTIC REGION
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my intervention this evening arises from questions which I put to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) at the end of May after he had released a study paper backing up the transportation agreement entered into between the premiers of the Atlantic region and himself on February 8.
First, I want to point out that the minister's answer to my first question completely ignored the fact that under this proposal, agreed to by the maritime premiers, the whole of Cape Breton Island, including the heavily populated industrial area of Sydney as well as the rest of eastern Nova Scotia, would, if he and the premiers who signed the agreement, including the Premier of Nova Scotia, had their way, be denied direct access to his one proposed transcontinental train which would go from Montreal to Halifax. The minister's proposal would mean the loss of nine railway services over five different routes in exchange for $125 million to the Atlantic provinces over a three-year period, $100 million of which would be put into highways.

June 14, 1977
Adjournment Debate
I can understand the ignorance of the Minister of Transport concerning the geographic and population characteristics of the area, but that the Premier of Nova Scotia should agree, in exchange for what amounts to a mess of potage, that the Cape Breton area should be directly cut off from the one proposed transcontinental route agreed on is, to my mind, incredible. Indeed, it is preposterous.
My question implied that the minister in releasing the documents, principally the study paper which had been prepared by the governments jointly under the auspices of the joint transportation committee, was prejudging the hearings of the transport committee on passenger transportation then taking place in various maritime locations.
It was the timing of this release which led me and many others to the conclusion that the minister was either prejudging the issue or was holding a gun to the heads of the commissioners who were conducting the hearings. Intentionally or otherwise, the minister cast grave doubts on the legitimacy of those hearings and accused the whole commission process of being mere window dressing for a government policy which had already been decided upon.
By emphasizing in the study paper that the federal government was prepared to contribute a subsidy amounting to 100 per cent if there was only one transcontinental train running from Halifax to the Montreal area rather than contribute the 80 per cent it does now, the minister appeared to me and to many others to be imposing his wishes on the commissioners' conclusions. To say the least, it appeared to be an unwarranted intervention at a crucial time in the hearings and in the regulatory process which was going on in the maritimes to determine the future of passenger rail service.
In answering my question, the minister referred to the very extensive $125 million transportation package for the Atlantic provinces "as evidence of our intention to use money more effectively for the Atlantic provinces". Well, there are a lot of people in the Atlantic provinces who do not agree that a $125 million transportation package over three years for the whole of the maritime provinces is a very extensive one. In fact, the Nova Scotia highways minister was quoted in the Chronicle-Herald for Thursday, June 2 as saying that the proposal which the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) put before the Canadian Transport Commissioners does not resemble the plan put before the minister by the provinces at meetings earlier this year.
The Minister of Transport, of course, is concerned with defraying rail passenger expenses across the nation by $112 million and sees the solution as cutting out rail passenger transportation. Since we are in an energy-intensive era, it strikes one as being ironic that the minister is not more concerned at having to pay the $250 million annual deficits on the operation of airports such as Mirabel. I would think that due consideration to the type of energy crunch facing this nation in the next decade should make us emphasize energy resource conservation, particularly in transportation facilities,

both public and private. Given the dependence of Nova Scotia on imported oil, this is more true for it than all of the rest of the provinces except Prince Edward Island.
As regards my supplementary question in which I noted that, in the quid pro quo of $125 million over a three-year period for less railway passenger transportation in the Atlantic region, there is no mention made of improving equipment and facilities such as passenger trains, locomotives, railbeds and so on, I suggested, under my understanding of the agreement, that the Atlantic provinces, especially the two which depend upon railroads-Nova Scotia and New Brunswick-would be retaining in the railroad passenger industry the technology of the 1940s and 1950s, while other provinces across the country are opting for increased, more efficient rail passenger transit systems.
In answering me, the minister seemed to agree with this assessment, although he made the general statement "We believe that the upgrading of passenger services is essential", and related it to the change in the subsidy under his proposal. But this does not constitute any commitment to the modernization of equipment, railbeds, trackage, etc. that is needed.
It is obvious that the minister is determined to cut back on railway passenger transportation in the maritime provinces. I say "maritimes" because Newfoundland no longer has a railway system and Prince Edward Island does not have one either. I read the Canadian National submission to the Canadian Transport Commission at a hearing in Halifax on May 17, 1977. Mr. Garth Campbell, the Canadian National vice-president of passenger marketing, said in that submission, and I quote:
It would be a mistake to expect rail services to continue simply by halving or quartering what is offered.
Mr. Campbell seems to agree with my contention as against the minister's, because in the Canadian National brief he emphasizes that if governments decide to emphasize highway and air services, railway systems will receive limited capital or none at all. He noted that the existing passenger cars in the maritime regions are 25 years old and one car used at Halifax is 40 years old.
In his memorandum of May 25, the Minister of Transport has a table on page 3 showing annual passengers by volume and percentage, using the four modes of transportation-rail, bus, air and auto. In incorporating this table to make his case look stronger, the Minister of Transport failed to use statistics that would show, as Mr. Campbell noted in the CNR brief, that traffic has begun to pick up again, as far as passenger trains are concerned, in the last two years after a period of steady decline since 1971.
In a brief to the Canadian Transport Commission in Sydney on May 27, I made some suggestions on how improvements in railroad transportation in the long run could indeed help the Sydney steel plant, the Pictou county Trenton Car Works and, indirectly, the port of Halifax; but I do not have the time here to repeat my arguments.
June 14, 1977


Samuel Victor Railton: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to set down on the record of the House events leading up to the release of the Atlantic region intermodal passenger study and details of the relationship of this particular study to the hearings just completed in the maritimes by the railway transport committee of the CTC. At the outset, let me emphasize that the study was not an attempt to carry out those review functions which are properly delegated to the CTC, but rather the objective was to do a study encompassing all public modes of passenger transportation.
The focus of the work was on public modes of interurban passenger transportation-for example, the rail, air and bus modes-and had the following objectives: to consolidate the existing information on interurban passenger transportation in the Atlantic region to provide a data base; and to examine a range of broad approaches for improving the level of service of interurban passenger transport in order to identify the relative financial and energy implications associated with these approaches.
In summary, the Atlantic region intermodal passenger study is a consultant's report which provides a framework for considering alternate concepts for transportation services and facilities. It does not address all the options across the spectrum in any one mode and represents, therefore, just one set of alternatives for the upgrading of passenger transportation in the region.
In conclusion, let me assure the hon. member that the federal government is awaiting the outcome of the CTC's route and service hearings in the Atlantic provinces. Following their recommendation then and only then will the government be able to make a complete and informed decision on the best rail passenger service for eastern Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been withdrawn.
Motion withdrawn.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock tonight.
At 6.30 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Metric System


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Marchand (for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce) that Bill C-23, to facilitate conversion to the metric system of measurement, be read the third time and do pass.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. At six o'clock the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) had the floor.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, prior to the dinner hour I said that I wished to speak again on this bill.
I commenced my remarks by saying that I was extremely disappointed by the fact that the minister and his colleagues failed to respond to the proposal we had advanced in the form of an amendment. I felt that the minister's statement in the House on May 3, as recorded at pages 5226 and 5227 of Hansard, was sincere and genuine. He indicated that there would be further consultations with the grain industry and especially with the farmers. He said that the exact mechanism had not yet been decided upon but that he would be happy to hear and indeed would welcome suggestions from me or from any other member on this side of the House with regard to the most effective mechanism. I think that we on this side responded in a responsible, sensible and honourable fashion by making a very practical proposal. Unfortunately, it was rejected.
Neither the minister nor his colleagues have spoken on the amendment either directly of indirectly. There have not even been informal conversations or consultations. There has not been one speech from the government side of the House to indicate whether there was any glimmer of support for what we were attempting to achieve. The government has been both coy and contemptuous on this issue. They sat there and intimidated us by suggesting that we bring on the vote. I am indeed saddened by the fact that we can only conclude, judging from this scenario, that the minister was not sincere when he replied to me in the House on May 3. It is a sad day in the House when the words of a minister spoken in the House either during the question period or in a speech cannot be taken seriously by other members of the House or indeed by the public of Canada. What is more, we have not been given the slightest hint as to what kind of consultative process the government is considering. I do not know whether in fact some sort of mechanism has been formalized. I am not sure whether there will be any consultation, hence we feel that the minister has betrayed us and has not lived up to his promise. I suppose he may organize officials of the Metric Commission to meet with groups of farmers, but that will not be consultation. That will be nothing more than bureaucratic coercion. The experts will attempt to browbeat farmers into believing that the metric

June 14, 1977
Metric System
system as it would apply to the grain trade is the best thing since sliced bread.
What is more revealing about this whole debate is the behaviour of the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Horner) from Crowfoot. Where does he stand in this whole scenario? Hon. members may recall that he was supposed to take the metric system from the backs of the farmers when he joined the Liberal ranks. I think it is fair to point out that he has not made a speech in the House of Commons on this bill. He made a little noise in the committee-


Mr. McKinley:: He is muzzled now.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -but as my hon. colleague suggests, he is muzzled now. Where is he today? What is he doing about the progress which this government wants to make with this particular bill, without making any commitments or any changes? The Minister without Portfolio chooses to remain silent. We can only conclude that he does not have enough influence on the government to convince it to withdraw the bill, or to accept our amendment, or to let the bill die. Now that the government has the minister under control, it seems to take great satisfaction in the fact that the bill has been introduced and reintroduced. The government seems to be playing with the minister like a yo-yo. Last Thursday he was in the chamber. He listened, but he dared not participate in the debate. One can only wonder why he is so silent now and why he does not have the influence which we heard so much about when he crossed the floor to join the Liberal ranks. One has to wonder why he does not speak now; as we all know, it is not usual for the Minister without Portfolio to remain silent on an issue which affects western Canadians.


Mr. Andre:: On any issue.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Or any issue, for that matter. I am disappointed in the minister from Crowfoot because he has failed to deliver a promise to western Canadian producers. He has let western Canada down, and I am disappointed on his behalf that the government has pulled the rug from under him. I am sure this must cause him considerable embarrassment.
The government has run out of legislative items on the order paper, and so it has been trying to deal with the bits and pieces of legislation which remain. However, it is quite obvious now that the government is hell-bent on proceeding with this bill in spite of the widespread protest and the growing opposition across the country. I said in an earlier speech that this legislation is more like metric coercion than metric conversion, and as it passes and becomes effective in the grain industry and in other industries farmers will probably refer to it as "metric confusion". The fact of the matter is that conversion in the grain trade is totally unnecessary. It is expensive, and it is going to cause a great deal of inconvenience to the producers of western Canada.
What is very troublesome and what bothers me very deeply is the fact that we have here another example of the wishes of

the majority being ignored. Quite frankly, I am disappointed and saddened by that fact. I believe this measure is contrary to the best interests of our parliamentary democracy. I believe it is contrary to preserving and building a trust and a confidence in our system of parliamentary democracy. There can be absolutely no question that conversion in the grain trade as it would affect producers is clearly vigorously opposed.
I say this in spite of what farm organizations have said in the committee and publicly. I pointed out in my speech last week that one farm organization decided to canvass its membership some time in March 1977. The bill was to become law on February 1, 1977, and I think that simply illustrates the fact that farm organizations did not consult the producers they represent. They took it for granted.
It is no wonder, when we have an issue as important and as vital as this, that interest would be generated. Many comparisons and many observations have been made about the impact of metric conversion as it would apply to western Canada. Many have said that the system we now have is an inherent part of our western culture and that this change will be very disruptive to the land measurement system and to our way of life. It is no wonder, when a piece of legislation is thrust upon a very large segment of the population of Canada, that our parliamentary institutions come under attack. Many people say, "Well, so what; those guys sitting in Ottawa simply do what they want to do; they will not listen to anybody". That is what has happened with regard to metric conversion. Many producers across this country have resigned themselves to the fact that metric is coming, that it is a fait accompli, that there is nothing they can do about it and that they will have to grin and bear it.
At the very outset we on this side of the House took the position that the conversion process should be undertaken through legislation. I remind hon. members that this is one of the first pieces of legislation which has ever been proposed in the House to effect metric conversion, as the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie) stated. Our position was clearly a responsible one, and if we are going to have a very major change thrust upon us, it should be in the form of legislation and not done by order in council.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It is no wonder that there is widespread cynicism about parliament, about members of parliament and about our institutions.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Particularly about this government.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Much of this cynicism flows from the attitude of this government, from the way it carries on in its arrogant fashion and from the way it conducts the business of this nation. No wonder there is mistrust about how we do things here and about what we do here. It is no wonder that there is suspicion. We can ill afford that at this time. Parliamentary freedom is something we should treasure, preserve and fight for with all our might.
June 14, 1977

There is no question that there is a growing lack of confidence in this institution. There was a billboard sign in the recent Ontario election which used the expression "Don't vote, you might encourage them". I think that demonstrates the mood of many Canadians about our parliamentary institution. There is growing dissatisfaction with the manner in which we handle our legislative process and with the way this institution conducts its business.
In that connection I would like to quote from a letter to one of our farm newspapers. The letter comments on the manner in which the metric system is being proceeded with. It is entitled "Who are we to have a say?"
Sir:
It is most difficult to understand the logic of individuals such as some of this paper's recent correspondents. I am referring to those who are encouraging their fellow Canadians to take issue with the "imposition without our consent, of the metric system." I find it most shocking to observe the great number who take this stand.
I say, who are we to actually dare to raise our uneducated and ungrateful voices and blatantly dispute the decisions of our Ottawa bureaucrats?
So what if we as citizens and taxpayers didn't get asked if we wanted our present system of weights and measures tossed in the garbage? Who are we, to have a say?
So what if the changeover will cost us millions of dollars and plenty of confusion? Just because we cannot fathom the undoubtedly sound reasoning of scrapping the imperial system, which has served us so well; does that mean it is not being done in our best interests?
Oh we of little faith. Let not our questioning minds consider rebellion, but rather let us take comfort in the knowledge that our loyal representatives in Ottawa would never dream of ramming anything down our throats that wasn t just what we really needed all the time. Well, would they?
It is signed Dan Riley, of Strathclair, Manitoba. That letter sums up the feelings of western Canadians on this legislation and how it has been introduced and proceeded with. But we must be concerned about other areas of jurisdiction affecting this institution. Not long ago the Auditor General warned us that the government, indeed parliament, has lost control of the public purse, that spending is out of control, that financial management and control systems are below acceptable standards of quality and effectiveness and that our Crown corporations are not being run in a businesslike way. There is evidence to show that financial control mechanisms are weak, ineffective and even inadequate. I ask, when did all this happen? It happened under successive Liberal regimes, under Liberal governments which rule with arrogance rather than with concern, which rule with disregard for our people rather than with consideration. Most of the time the government simply wants to grind out legislation as if it were sausage produced in a sausage factory. It heaps on us reams and reams of unnecessary legislation.


A. Daniel McKenzie: It's rotten sausage.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It is rotten sausage. It is unnecessary legislation and unnecessary regulations heaped on the backs of Canadians. This bill is another example. Is it not time to restore sanity and commonsense to this institution, and to
Metric System
restore confidence in it as well? We have a great deal of legislation on this country's statute books.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Pardon me. I should have said it is baloney, not sausage.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: We bring in ever more legislation every day. I am told the competition bill will conflict with almost all legislation on our statute books. We need some sort of clearing agency which will vet legislation before this House considers it, so that no bill the government introduces will interfere or conflict with or contradict existing legislation. I talked with a representative of one of the major oil companies who appeared the other day before one of our standing committees. He reminded me that there are some 375 pieces of legislation affecting the oil industry of this country directly or indirectly. And that does not include all the regulations and orders in council various levels of government impose on the industry. Most of them are passed in the middle of the night, so to speak, and we never hear about them.
Is it any wonder that we have an energy crisis in this country, considering that those engaged in energy production are frustrated on every hand by the proliferation of legislation and regulations passed by all levels of government in all parts of the country? Our energy producers are frustrated especially by the inconsistencies of various pieces of legislation which work at cross purposes to one another. Mr. Speaker, the farmers do not want this legislation, because they do not need it: This should be clear to any western member of parliament who has the guts to send out a questionnaire or survey on this bill.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Including Jack Horner.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Western members should do this if they are concerned about the feelings of their constituents farmers as well as city dwellers, doctors, lawyers, professors and so on. I sent out a questionnaire couched in simple language. My first question was this: Are you in favour of conversion to the metric system? Of those who replied, 29.1 per cent said yes, 65.5 per cent no, and 5.4 per cent had no opinion.
Question No. 2 asked: Are you in favour of converting (a) acres to hectares? Seventeen per cent said yes, 74.3 per cent said no, and 8.7 per cent had no opinion. The second part, (b), had to do with conversion of bushels to tonnes. Here are the replies: Yes, 21.7 per cent; no, 69.2 per cent; no opinion, 9.1 per cent. I point out that not only farmers responded to the questionnaire; answers were provided by a cross section of people in the constituency. Surely, if we are worth our salt, it is our duty, our obligation, to place the views of our constituents on the record of this House.
In this connection I wish to quote a letter printed in Farm Trends of April, 1977, on page 10, entitled "Metric Confusion". It says:
For over two years now, I have tried to create a public awareness of the implications of metric conversion, especially as it applies to agriculture. Farmers will be affected by the change more than any other group, so I feel I must still speak out.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for giving me the opportunity to conclude my remarks. I reiterate, it hardly augurs well for simplicity, convenience and uniformity. It is more like confusion and inconvenience. I know that the application of the metric system, particularly to agriculture in Canada, will cause undue hardship, inconvenience and confusion. It will create additional costs. I plead with the minister seriously to reconsider this measure. I ask him seriously to consider some of the pleas we have been making on behalf of the producers of western Canada. I implore him to give the farmers of western Canada an opportunity to express their views directly. Give the farmers an opportunity to participate in the democratic process. Let them be heard. Let them participate directly with the elected representatives of the parliament of Canada.
The minister rejected our proposal. I invite him to come forth with his proposal. What is his government going to do in terms of setting up this consultative mechanism? Whatever it may be, I hope he will give the western farmers the opportunity to present their views and place them clearly on the record. Then and only then will the best interests of the producer be served. Then and only then will democracy and our parliamentary institutions be best served. With that in mind, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga):
That Bill C-23 be not now read a third time but that it be read a third time six months from now.


Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, I speak in support of the amendment put forward by my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski). This is the third opportunity I have had to participate in this debate. It is obvious that the majority of the constructive proposals that this party has put forward are falling on deaf ears.
The hon. member for Vegreville asked the minister responsible for small business whether he would accept some of our suggestions. The minister assured the House at that time that he was interested in our proposals. During the course of this debate we have found out just how interested the minister is in our proposals. We suggested that the clauses dealing with the
June 14, 1977

farming industry be referred back to the committee. Today in the House that was voted down.
The farmers had high expectations of an amendment to this bill when the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) crossed the floor. However, as was noted in the House today by the hon. member for Vegreville, the hon. member for Crowfoot was not in the House to vote for this legislation.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It was a sad day that Jack Horner turned against us in reference to the metric system. We oppose the bill.


Peter Elzinga: Not one member opposite took part in the debate on the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton). We have tried to put forward constructive proposals. The hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) suggested many ways in which improvements could be made.
We are all aware that the farm population in this country constitutes only 5 per cent of the total population. Perhaps this is one of the reasons the government was so intent on persisting with this legislation; it has no concern for those who are engaged in the farm sector. To anyone who has followed this debate it is obvious there is no one on the other side who speaks for the western farmer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Peter Elzinga: The minister for small business has sat mum in his seat signing his letters. I just wish he had seen fit to answer the letter the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Papros-ki) read into the record today complaining about the metric system. But he did not choose to answer a letter which was contrary to his own view. The minister has told us he would not implement certain sections of the act, should this bill be passed, until he has consulted with the various farm groups.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I would not trust him.


Peter Elzinga: We cannot, after previous performances. 1 cannot understand why we should be debating legislation which is not going to be enacted. What is the purpose? It is just a waste of parliamentary time. If we can find nothing better to do than debate legislation which the government tells us it has no intention of enacting, it is time we recessed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Good point!


Peter Elzinga: Another important consideration is the probable cost of these proposals. The United States estimates that metrication will cost them anything from $40 billion to $100 billion. Using the traditional factor of 10 per cent, we can expect that metrication will cost Canadians between $4 billion and $10 billion. However, to judge by its past performance, cost is an element least likely to be taken into account by the government. After all, in the past nine years or so we have seen
Metric System
record government spending. Of the nine budgets brought forward, eight have been deficit budgets. Today we are witnessing record inflation because of Liberal administration, record unemployment because of Liberal administration, and record government spending-spending out of all proportion.
We are imperilling the welfare of future generations to suit the whims of this administration. The economy is plagued by record high interest rates and record mortgage interest rates. Our current level of foreign borrowing is the highest of any industrialized nation. Is all this a record of which hon. members opposite can be proud? The national unity issue is probably the only issue which can save this government, and that is so sad. Because if one looks at the record of this administration, it becomes apparent we shall not have a country worth saving if the affairs of the nation are carried on in the future as they have been in the last ten years.
Again, I ask; Is there anyone over there to speak for the farm population? Is there anyone to speak for the housewife? My hon. friend from St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) has very ably set out the difficulties which the Canadian housewife will encounter under the metric system. Instead of using teaspoons and cups to measure she will have to deal with kilograms and millilitres. But the government is not concerned with the difficulties of individuals who so often have no one to represent their interests.
The minister has assured us on several occasions that all the local farm organizations support this legislation. Had we accepted the minister's claim and allowed him to have his way, this measure would have been law before Christmas. But we hesitated to accept his statement at that time and we have discovered since that the heads of the local farm organizations were not speaking for their membership.
I have received briefs from several locals of Unifarm in my constituency supporting the position taken by my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain and suggesting that the clauses of the bill referred to in the hon. member's motion be deleted. These representations are a clear indication to me of the manner in which the government attempts to mislead the opposition and the Canadian public. We have evidence of this time and time again. We saw it in 1974. We are all aware of what happened then-of the government's sudden change of heart after its return to power. We remember the campaign of 1972 when we spoke out in favour of a modest increase for pensioners and the indexing of personal income tax. At that time, we were severely criticized by the party opposite, but immediately after they had been elected to form a minority government they saw fit to implement the policies they had criticized so severely.
1 am saddened when I find legislation of this kind being pushed down our throats. I believe members on this side are to be congratulated on the contributions they have made to the debate and for making sure that participatory democracy is still alive in this country. They have made their views known forcibly in a number of speeches which I have heard or had the opportunity of reading in Hansard-speeches such as that made by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski),

June 14, 1977
Metric System
who has done a superb job of representing the needs and wishes of those he was elected to serve. The hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski) spoke today on behalf of constituents whom he has not yet been elected to serve when he put on record a letter from a rural resident in his prospective constituency of Edmonton North.


Steve Eugene Paproski: And the minister still has not answered that letter.


Peter Elzinga: This says something for participatory democracy. 1 am pleased to see there are many members on this side of the House who wish to continue with this debate.
Let me close by stating my disappointment at the manner in which so many members opposite withhold their true feelings. I am not only referring to the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) when he crossed the floor and stated that he would hope to see changes to this legislation. I have had the opportunity to talk to various other individuals on that side who have stated that they are in disagreement with this legislation. They are muzzled by their own people, much the same way as they were muzzled in the capital punishment debate. This is the third time I have had an opportunity to participate in this debate.
Even though I realize it is somewhat futile, I hope the minister will reconsider some of the positions he has taken and will see fit to give in to some of the positive suggestions made by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton), the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankow-ski), the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. O'Sullivan) and the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski).


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, since we have discussed the metric conversion bill from approximately December 23 until the present time, this House has witnessed more a devastating attack on the fundamental principles of this institution of parliament and the democracy of our country than on this bill. It was a simple matter which all parties had agreed to-how would Canada move into metric conversion? This government bungled it on the basis that they did not understand parliament or this country. It was their party which went up and down this country in that great, bare, red-assed demonstration of a baboon in heat. Participatory democracy was a great thing. Everyone was going to participate in decision-making. Where are these bare, red-assed baboons today? They are sitting there as docile as alley cats. They will not face up to the fact that they do not run the government. It is run by a series of people who are described as second class mandarins.
The Official Opposition, through the leadership of the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth (Mr, Kempling), supported metric conversion in principle. On behalf of the party, he asked the government to bring forward legislation which would show the responsibility each would have in the conversion.


Len Marchand: You should read his speech, Alvin, it was good. It supported metric conversion.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am glad to see the minister has awakened. The hon. member for Halton-Wentworth asked the government to show where the responsibilities lay and if there was any great harm economically to any group or individual, what was the compensation parliament was willing to provide? That was the stand on behalf of the party. This member is a manufacturer by trade and is knowledgeable of the advantages and the disadvantages of the metric system. The hon. member put his entire belief behind this conversion to the metric system. What turned him off? The fact is that as a businessman he saw second class public servants not knowing whether they were punched, countersunk or out by a steam shovel. He also saw that some of the ministers were weak and could not stand up for themselves. I remember that day in committee when he said, "If I were the boss and you were my employees, I would fire the whole bunch of you". That is exactly how the people of Canada feel.
On January 26, when this matter came up, on behalf of the Official Opposition I said that this bill was supposed to be law five days later on February 1. On behalf of my party, I offered to pass this bill that afternoon and legitimize what these grain companies had done and what other companies had done. They had been told by government officials that this was going to be law on February 1. That compromise was a simple one, namely, that we get rid of the word "hectares". We do not need hectares because we are not selling land on the world market. I thought the minister had accepted that compromise.
I was prepared to go across the country helping to explain to farmers, businessmen, consumers and housewives the advantages of the metric system. When I thought the minister had agreed, we stopped talking in the House, went into committee, and the first thing that happened to us in committee was that the minister got up and repudiated what he had indicated he was willing to do. He read out a statement which was prepared by public servants, which can be described by the elegant word "crap", and that is all it was. No person could write a statement like that for the minister and be anything above the level of a moron to make the arguments put forward in that statement.
We made a compromise offer to the government on second reading that we would support the thing even though it was going to be tough. We knew people would be opposed to the bill even if they took out that word "hectare". When we heard the evidence of the representatives of the so-called farm organizations, we knew they had not consulted with their farmers. We knew some hon. members on the government side were just as depressed about the metric conversion bill as we were. Yet we presented our second compromise in committee, namely that we should not ask consumers to have available only the metric system under the law, that we should give them three more years to change over. This is what the consumers association asked for, and this is what we moved. They wanted these people to have three more years of seeing both the imperial measurement and the metric measurement
June 14, 1977

on the same carton. It would give them three years to adjust in order to have time to persuade and educate them that the metric system was not bad.
That proposal was turned down by the votes of every Liberal member in that committee. Through the amendments by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil), we proposed that in the case of grain farmers we make it permissive. The Wheat Board made it permissive because they had to deal with farmers and they could not get along with them by trying to enforce the metric system on them without their permission. That was not the case with this government. They forced those poor Liberal members on the committee to vote against our second compromise one after the other-a permissive system for a number of years.
That was the second compromise, Mr. Speaker. On third reading we tried once again. Taking advantage of the minister's statement that he would not proclaim the legislation but wanted to consult with the grain industry and the farmers, I moved an amendment using his words. After the amendment was accepted-with the deletion of the last two or three phrases-we offered a compromise and said that if they took this bill back to committee to deal with Clauses 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10, and if the farmers were consulted, the Official Opposition would be co-operative in getting the bill through.
What happened, Mr. Speaker? Not one member on the government side responded to that compromise. This is the only way parliament can work yet they turned it down. They now sit silent, docile, a bunch of beaten-down hacks.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: They are so frightened of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that they dare not voice their own opinions and they do not care any more about what their constituents think. As long as the Prime Minister is in charge, they say, he will get some great issue going, such as abortion, divorce, homosexuality or a crisis that is not a crisis. He will even drag in homosexuality to get the people's interest away from the main issue. He will do anything at all to get off the main issue. That is why I say participatory democracy is dead as far as this government is concerned.
Last night a minister I have had many a battle with over the years, particularly on his farm legislation, brought in a bill that affects western farmers. I looked at the legislation, this party examined it and we decided it was good legislation. We knew it would be opposed by the New Democratic Party.


An hon. Member:: Where are they?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Stanley is always alone.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: This party voted with the government and I think this demonstrates that Her Majesty's Official Opposition will co-operate on good legislation. When we do support the government on bills that
Metric System
we think are good, however, then I think the government has an equal responsibility to listen when we oppose something they do.
All the evidence that can be brought forward, all the tests that can be made of public opinion on the prairies, show that a huge majority of people are opposed on this dictatorial conversion to a metric system that they do not understand and which they know is going to cost hundreds of millions of dollars. They also know they have no chance to express an opinion.
This alienation that exists all across the country against the governments of the provinces and the federal government has surfaced because we are not listening to our people and they feel there is no way for them to make their voices heard. As members of parliament all we can do is express the views of our constituents and our part of the country on behalf of equity and justice in the hope that the government will listen. When has this government ever bent its knees a fraction and yielded to the advice that might come from this side of the House?


An hon. Member:: Never.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The government seems to be unable to follow the democratic traditions of this place which depend upon a certain amount of give and take if there is to be harmony in reaching decisions which are best for the country.
To claim that what civil servants put forward as legislation is God's word and cannot be challenged is to go too far. I would say that democracy has suffered, with this fairly elementary principle of metric conversion, a deadly blow. Farmers from all parts of Saskatchewan and all across the prairies are writing to me about it but I have not bothered to read any letters into the record. Of 700 letters that came in, only three supported the metric system, and they were all from delegates of the Wheat Pool. We have always sold wheat by the metric system so why do we have to force metrication at the farm level when it is not necessary? If farmers can be shown there is some advantage in it they will adopt it.
In all the years I have been around here I have never seen such a complete failure of human beings to bend a little on such an elementary issue and make a compromise. All we asked the government to do was to consult face to face with the farmers; meet them in small groups where they can say what is on their minds. This issue of metric conversion, which I thought would have the harmonious co-operation of all parties, has turned out to be a complete farce in terms of democracy.
On the subject of humanity toward your fellow man, we know that the Liberals worked hard for two or three months seducing a simple country boy to join their Cabinet.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Where is he tonight?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Apparently he believed that if he crossed the floor they would listen to him. He promised the people of western Canada that if he got in there he would put the view of western Canada to the

June 14, 1977
Metric System
government and would protect them against this evil thing, the metric system. Just the other night I warned the government that if they rammed this metric conversion legislation through they would destroy the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Horner).


Stanley Howard Knowles: Maybe that is the reason.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: That is possible. The hon. member, who has been here many years, says that may be the reason. Perhaps it is a question of having the Prime Minister do to the new minister what he has done to so many ministers in the last three years. What other Prime Minister in the history of Canada has got rid of 14 cabinet ministers in four years?


An hon. Member:: Not even Idi Amin can do that.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Idi Amin is an amateur compared to the cynicism of the Prime Minister if he destroys the new minister so quickly. The Minister without Portfolio is in the west now. He spoke in my constituency for an hour and told the people why he had made the great conversion from a person who had always-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Little Jack Horner sits in his corner playing with his metric system.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: -been opposed to this government. He told the people in my constituency why he joined the cabinet. They naturally believe he is going to be able to persuade the government and the Prime Minister that the ways he is so strongly opposed to should be changed.
Why does the government bring this legislation forward in his absence, Mr. Speaker? Why are they pushing it through? Is the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) right when he suggests it is a deliberate plan to destroy the minister? What a cynical thing to do. No matter how simple a country boy he might have been, he is a human being.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I would question that.


William James Kempling: You can take the boy out of the country but you can't take the country out of the boy.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Canada is supposed to be a democratic country. Let us assume for a moment that the metric system is a good system and that once you have learned all the terms and you think in decimals, it is possible to calculate things fairly quickly and accurately. But decimals are dangerous.
This is the story that Quebec farmers are telling me. Two or three years ago they punched a lot of information into a computer to find out how much milk was needed in Quebec. The computer went clickety-clack and clunkety-clunk and out.

came the print-out. It was meant to read that 50 million pounds of milk was needed from producers in Quebec, but what did the fellow who read the print-out see? The decimal was shifted over and the figure that came out was 500 million pounds. The fellow at the end of the computer is not the guy who fed the computer at the beginning. Since the computer came out with a figure, he thought that is the truth. So our Canadian Dairy Commission told all the Quebec farmers to boost their production, to borrow money, to get cows that produce 20,000 pounds of milk a year instead of 10,000. The Quebec farmers did that. They had visions of an increase of 15 per cent in their quota.
You know what happened in the year 1976, Mr. Speaker. The cows were bred, they had calves, they were fresh, the milk was pouring out, the rains came, the grass grew, the cows ate it, the milk came out faster. The milk was pouring all over the place. Then the minister had to stand up and say that somebody made a mistake, the Quebec farmers were producing too much milk, their quota would have to be cut down by 15 per cent and if they did not start reducing that milk, the government would fine them $8 for every 100 pounds they delivered over the quota. So the poor little farmer says to me, "Look, in one three months period I get $12,000 worth of milk produced, but the fines are $9,000. I am broke".
Last June the Quebec farmers had a meeting in front of the parliament buildings. The poor minister had not been told by the civil servant that somebody had goofed with the decimal point. He went out to say "Mes amis, I am your Minister of Agriculture". You know what happened. He thought the world war had broken out, with all that milk and butter. Why should a minister have to endure that because somebody made a mistake with a decimal point? I am simply saying that in Canada, even though the metric system is a good system, it is dangerous if you have to move decimal points around.
My remarks can be summed up in this way, Mr. Speaker. Canada, like the United States, the United Kingdom, Sweden and other countries, has a democratic tradition. You cannot force a Canadian to do anything; you can only lead him. We have demonstrated that in the war and we have shown it in peacetime. You do not force Canadians. Of course, occasionally you can scare them and they do irrational things, but generally speaking you do not fool Canadians for too long. I am simply saying that the government is not using democratic procedures in this matter. What is wrong with asking farmers face to face what they have against the metric system and whether they would accept it and give a little here and take a little there? The farmer would back you up if he saw that it was in his interest and that of his country to do so. But we are not giving him this opportunity. The government is attacking our democratic ways. Participatory democracy is gone.
I just came from a reception tonight which was in honour of a delegation from the People's Republic of China. The first thing I did when I arrived was to ask them whether they are still using their land measurements. They said, "Oh yes, we still use the mu". I asked them whether they are still using their weight measurements, and they said, "Oh yes, we still
June 14, 1977

use the catty". "But," I said, "your officials always use hectares and tonnes". They said, "Yes, but in the people's culture it is the mu, a sixth of an acre, and the weight measurement is a catty that the farmer can handle and lift". The Chinese farmer understands the mu-it has been used in China for 6,000 years. So even in a revolutionary society such as the People's Republic of China they would not consider changing the land measurement; they simply make the official do the conversion into the so-called metric system, the way we have always done it in Canada. But in Canada we do not have respect for people any more. We do not let them keep their culture, we do not let them change gradually. We force the change through because the experts say that is the quickest way-you kill or you cure. I think that somebody's hide is going to be cured this time.
I think that under this Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) we have lost the ability to be flexible. We have lost the ability to be democratic, and we are simply taking the word from up high. Infallibility has long since passed from the scene in the modern world. It is not the Pope's infallibility we are talking about; we are talking about the infallibility of the Prime Minister, and there are several other ministers who hope they have the characteristic of infallibility too. You cannot run Canada on the principle of infallibility. All you can do is to move forward a little bit at a time; that is the way you make progress.
I want to conclude with a statement made with respect to the history of our country written by Donald Creighton. I mentioned this before and I mention it again. His volume 18 on the history of Canada from 1939 to 1957 is entitled "The Forked Road". In that volume he pointed out that Canada, during those years of war and the 12 years afterwards, took the wrong fork in the road. Then he said that we surrendered as a nation to Keynes, Beveridge and Burnham; Keynes with his monetary theory that would solve all our problems; Beveridge with his cradle to the grave doctrine which would keep everybody supplied with social welfare; and Burnham with his doctrine of the managerial elite. Who won the war? The managerial elite run this country. They are the ones who guide the ministries. They are the ones who terrify the backbenchers.
So long as you depend on the special breed of people who come up through these pyramids in the civil service and a dozen people tell you what to do, this is the state in which we will find ourselves. We have lost our respect for the common people. We have alienated ourselves from them as an institution, and we have gone a long way in attacking the foundations of democracy to send this country down the wrong fork in the road.
You have seen and heard members of this party do their level best to try to put the facts before the government. We pointed out that the hectare will cause a whole lot of trouble in Quebec, Ontario and the Maritimes, as well as in the west. It is not a permanent part of the metric system; it is only in there temporarily. Yet we are being forced to accept a temporary term that will upset us, all in the name of keeping everything
Metric System
neat and tidy and efficient according to Burnham's theory of the managerial elite.
Canada as a nation took the wrong road when fighting the war in 1939 and the years afterwards, the road of controls, the road of loss of freedom. What is necessary now is to get back to basic truths; you do not force Canadians to bow to the wisdom of a managerial elite which learns nothing and forgets nothing. I call them nitwits, and everybody can understand.
That is the perspective in which this issue must be seen. We have sold our souls to experts who are exacting a terrible price from us in the loss of our democratic traditions. It is a sorry day when I have to stand in the House and make the charges I am making tonight, but I make them in honesty and sincerity.
I say that even on a simple matter such as the metric system the government will not use the ordinary democratic procedures that would make this system work. That is why we have no choice but to tell the people of the country that the only party in the House which has stood up and fought on this issue was Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, the Progressive Conservative Party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: We want this country to tackle the monetary and economic issues which are before us and not be distracted by issues which are purely emotional and which have nothing to do with the problems ahead of us. I hope this metric debate has served one useful function; I hope it has convinced many people that their voices are not going to get heard by this government as long as this government lasts and as long as the government stays under the heels of this so-called managerial elite.


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to participate in this debate and particularly to follow the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton), who always gets to the heart of the matter under discussion. As the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain indicated, at the outset of the debates we have had on metric conversion I also was one of its great supporters, and I believe I still am today. I believe eventually we will go to the metric system. I think eventually we will convert, but I became very turned off in discussions I had in meetings with the Metric Commission.
When we look at these matters, it might be a good idea to go back and read part of the order in council which set up the Metric Commission. The order in council is dated June 10, 1971 and it is order in council No. PC 1971-1146. The order in council accepted a recommendation of the then minister of industry, trade and commerce, pursuant to section 18 of the Government Organization Act, 1969, to establish a preparatory commission for the conversion to the metric system. At that time all parties in the House accepted metric conversion. I believe they accepted it on the basis that in due course we would have a metric bill before the House which would lay

June 14, 1977
Metric System
down the complete program of metric conversion to cover a ten-year period. However, we have not seen that.
The order in council to which I referred instructed the commission in item 7 as follows:
The Commission shall advise the Minister on the need for legislation or any other action that may be required to facilitate conversion to the metric system.
We talked to the commission about this when we had some of its members before our committee, but they were just blank on the question of legislation. As closely as I can calculate, there are at the present time about 92 statutes which will have to be amended to accommodate the metric system. I can only say to the minister responsible for this measure that he has had an indication in this debate of the difficulties with just a few of the items which are being dealt with in Bill C-23. There are 92 or so more statutes to be amended. If the minister wants to make some progress, I urge him to bring in a metric bill and lay the balance of the program out. Surely that is not too much to ask.
We have spent something in the order of $20 million on metric conversion so far, and what have we got for it? We have a very confused picture. We have 1,500 people on the sectoral committees of the Metric Commission. These are mostly technical people. They are not market-oriented at all. There is no representation from small and medium sized businesses to speak of.
In other words, the corporate elite is engineering metric conversion. Those are the people who have financial base which enables them to send their people to Ottawa to sit on those sectoral committees and to help the government engineer this conversion. We have a bunch of technocrats who are using a critical path method, but they are adhering very rigidly to the dates set down by the commission.
The biggest problem I have discovered as a result of talking to people in industry who are working with the Metric Commission is that there is a tremendous lack of communication. What they are saying is that we should inform the informers, because there is only a handful of organizations which have the means to communicate with their various members. People in industry get together and form little industrial associations so that they can talk over their mutual problems; but let us remember that it takes money to run those organizations and to disseminate information, and there is only a handful of large organizations which have the means to communicate with all their members. Let us remember also that not everyone in industry belongs to one of those groups. The biggest problem is lack of communication, and the fact is that there is no representation from small and medium sized businesses to speak of. I know from talking with the Canadian Federation of Independent Businessmen that their constant complaint is that they have no representation or no input with regard to metric conversion.
Then there are mechanics and people who are concerned about buying tools. They wonder whether they are going to get some allowance for the special tools they have to buy. I have to concede that, after looking into the matter on my own and after talking with various tool manufacturers, I have found

that the cost is not as great as some would have us believe. We have heard figures of $3,000 and $1,500 as the cost of a mechanic's tools and so forth, but the cost is not that high. The tool manufacturers tell us that the cost is quite a bit less than that; $150 or $200 in many cases was all that was needed to convert. However, these people are looking for an allowance. After all, if you are running a business and buy tools, you can deduct the cost of those tools as an expense. However, the man who has to supply his own tools cannot do that. He does get an income tax allowance of so many dollars a year, but that is just for the replacement of existing tools which are broken. He is looking for something beyond that.
It is my understanding that the Metric Commission recommended a tax allowance and the income tax form, but that was rejected by the Department of Finance on the ground that it might set a precedent. That is a pretty flimsy way to look at it.
However, the Metric Commission went back in its bureaucratic way and came up with an alternative method. Hon. members will not believe this. The metric mafia says the alternative method of giving an allowance for tools would be this: first, the mechanic purchases a tool; he receives a sales slip describing the tool and designating it as a metric tool; he mails the sales slip to the Metric Commission, after completing, of course, the appropriate form in true government style; the Metric Commission investigates the claim and, if it approves it, it passes it along to the Department of Supply and Services. In due course the Department of Supply and Services issues a cheque to the mechanic and mails it out to Manpower, which distributes the cheque to the mechanic. Can hon. members imagine a more complicated way of reimbursing someone who buys a metric tool? Is it not incredible that all those steps should have to be taken?
One would think the government would make some accommodation for this matter on personal income tax forms, but no, it has not done this. There will be a proliferation of hundreds of thousands of pieces of paper. People will be running around checking catalogues and advertisements to see it it is being done according to the government's standard. The federal government has not even consulted all its departments to determine how they will be affected by the metric system. That does not show a strong commitment on the government's part. That is partly why we say this present legislation is inadequate.
What is the Metric Commission? Basically it is a bunch of misfits, and I say that with all due respect. It is my impression that if a department wants to get rid of someone, it sends him to the Metric Commission. That is why I said the commission is nothing but a bunch of misfits. It has not thought this question through. Some time ago I talked to people in the Canadian lumber industry from the west coast, one of whom had been on a sectoral committee. He said that the lumber industry could convert, but that cost was the important factor.
We are told that conversion to the metric system is to be complete by 1980, and I wondered if the lumber industry could
June 14, 1977

meet that 1980 target date. This man told me that possibly they could be ready by 1985 but it depends on what happens south of the border, for much of our lumber goes there. They buy it. If they are ready to accept metric measure by 1985, we will convert then. If they are not ready until 1990, we will wait until then. Therefore, not every industry of this country will convert readily to metric measurement, and for good reason. And we are annoyed that the federal government has not considered this.
That our changeover is confused is illustrated best by what happened in the changeover from Fahrenheit to Celsius. Before the changeover, the commission was in a panic. It held various meetings and decided, in the summer to publish a book for distribution to school-children in the fall. They would return to school in September, read the pamphlet on temperature conversion, and tell their parents about it. In the process it was hoped everyone would become familiar with the new temperature scale. There were numerous delays, and although the booklet was eventually finished, it was not ready for September distribution. The following January it was still sitting on the desk of the Metric Commission director.
Then someone looked at the calendar and said, "My God, we are supposed to be converted to Celsius by March and we have not distributed the booklet in January." There was great panic. There was an attempt to move the conversion date forward, but the government refused. Consequently great confusion reigned in the conversion from Fahrenheit to Celsius. Some still cannot use the new scale. Some radio stations report in Fahrenheit; others in Fahrenheit and Celsius. Although I have no trouble myself, I have met people who tell me they cannot relate to the new temperature scale, and are glad to have an old thermometer; otherwise they would not know the temperature.
The program of the Metric Commission has run into difficulty. It has spent almost $20 million, and the result has been a great deal of confusion in the country. The government's position on the changeover from acres to hectares shows great rigidity on its part. It makes no economic sense. The changeover from acres to hectares will not produce one more bushel, or tonne, I should say, of wheat. It will bring no economic gain. That is not only our view; it is also the view of the American scientific committee. The letter the American scientific Committee sent us told us that people in Louisiana still use the old French land measuring system, and in California they still use the old Spanish measure. They do not think there is any economic advantage in converting to the English system of acres. The committee says it sees no economic advantage in the conversion from hectares to acres. I say it will bring only confusion.
The government and the Metric Commission are trying to tell us that the provinces will be responsible for the conversion; I suppose theoretically the provinces will convert, and people supporting metric conversion say everything will be rosy. Well, they are not right. Many municipalities have said they do not intend to change their street signs from miles an hour to kilometres an hour. The authorities in one of our large cities say this could be dangerous, because if people see that the speed limit is 50 kilometres they may think it is 50 miles an
Metric System
hour. I point out that 35 kilometres an hour or even 30 kilometres an hour is not the same as 30 miles an hour. Think also of the confusion in our border towns, where tourists enter from the United States. There could be serious difficulties, and people not used to metric speed signs could easily become confused.
In addition, consider the cost of changing our signs. Municipalities will approach the provinces for the money and the provinces will say, "We have no money for this, it is the federal government's responsibility. We will take it up with the federal government." The provinces will find they cannot get anything out of the federal government for metric conversion. Therefore it will be the taxpayers of our towns and cities who will pay the costs of conversion. But many of our small communities will say, "We do not have the $100,000 or the $200,000 needed to change our signs, and we are not going to do it." The result will be nothing but confusion in the matter of metric conversion.
Hon. members have talked of the change metric conversion will impose on our culture. I suppose people will say that Peter Piper picked 8.87 grams of pickled peppers, but it does not sound the same, and it disturbs me.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Say it really quickly.


William James Kempling: I can hardly say it as it is without faltering. We used to say, when quoting the "Charge of the Light Brigade", "Half a league, half a league, half a league onward, into the valley of death rode the 600". I suppose now we shall say, "1.5 kilometres, 1.5 kilometres, 1.5 kilometres onward, into the valley of death rode the 600."


Steve Eugene Paproski: What do you think will happen to football fields?


William James Kempling: Incidentally, Mr. Jake Gaudaur, commissioner of the Canadian Football League, participated in our little luncheon group not long ago and assured us there will be great difficulty converting football fields. He said that despite anything the government says, it is intended to retain the present field size and markings.
I have been rather harsh with the Metric Commission. In my view, they have not done the job they were given. The order in council is very precise as to what they are to do. Nearly $20 million has been spent on metric conversion. However, when I talk to people in industry they say they do not hear anything about it. They are not getting the information. They say they will not absorb the cost of metric conversion, they will pass it on to the consumer. Eventually, the taxpayer has to pay for this. The taxpayer has already absorbed the $20 million spent by the Metric Commission.
The Metric Commission periodically travels around the country holding meetings. They have said to those attending the meetings that industry will pay the cost because of the great benefits that will accrue to them down the road. That is one thing you do not do in business, accrue benefits over a long

June 14, 1977
Metric System
period of time. There is no place on the ledger sheet headed "benefits that will accrue" so that you can write off the cost over a period of time. They go from year to year because that is the basis on which they pay taxes.
The Metric Commissioners say at those meetings that industry will absorb the cost and it will not be passed on to the consumer. At the same time the industry people are saying they will not absorb the cost, that it will be passed on to the consumer.
I would like to see this matter brought forward in a bill. The best thing that could happen to metric conversion would be to bring a bill into this House and have it debated. Let us get it out in the open and do something about it. Get it into committee. Put the amendment through.
If the people on the Metric Commission do not know how to write a bill, we will help them. If the Department of Finance does not know how to compensate small people for the cost that will accrue to them as a result of metric conversion, we will tell them how to do it. We have studied this for a long while. I think we have a good handle on it.
Like my colleagues, I become discouraged when I see the government become rigid. They will not move. They say this is the way it is going to be and you will like it or lump it. When I see that happen, I become very obstinate. I can no longer be a person very much in support of metric conversion.
I went into our caucus and pleaded with our members to support metric conversion. Many now ask me what has happened. They remember when I went to caucus and made a long, passionate speech about metric conversion, how we should support it and how great it would be for Canada. I took a lot of abuse for it. I received letters. I will not read them into the record because some are not very nice. However, I did that because I believed in metric conversion. When I saw what the various ministries had done or had not done with regard to metric conversion, I changed my view. I support the principle of metric conversion completely, but I do not support the way the government is trying to implement it. The way they are going about it is regressive.
With regard to the one matter of acres and hectares, we had before our committee representatives from the farming community. They told us that the farmers were all for metric conversion. At the same time, the farmers went to a meeting at the Chateau Laurier. Metric conversion was raised. There was such a violent argument that the chairman of the meeting tabled the matter so that they could get on with other business. In other words, in no way is metrication unanimous.
The hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) and others who have spoken in this debate have quite rightly said that this bill should be sent back to the committee.
Bring in a bill. Let us get it out in the open. Let us debate it. Let us get together with the farm groups to see what we can do to make metric conversion work. Until the government does that, I can assure them that they will have just as tough a time with the other 92 bills as they are having with Bill C-23.
[Mr. Kempling.J


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I would not have again risen to speak about this matter if I did not feel so deeply about it. During the last debate, I spoke about the history of the west. I spoke about the Torrens system which we inherited from New Zealand and described in some detail what it meant to the history of the west. During that speech, the minister responsible for small business pooh-poohed and heckled me. I read that speech tonight for the first time since I delivered it.
There is one tool that parliament has, namely the right to debate. I may be accused with my friends of filibustering the bill, but I will tell them this. If I have to filibuster this bill as long as I am in the House because of what it is doing to the history and tradition of western Canada, I will take the punishment the media pour out for filibustering. I will use every tool of parliament to make sure that parliament works rather than have something rammed down the throats of western Canadians.
This bill is nothing less than parliamentary insemination. They are going to give it to you through a syringe whether you will like it or not. You will have a calf whether you will like it or not. It is the rape of the west.
The opposition has a function. I have read articles, not in the farm papers but in other papers, suggesting that we are debating this bill and holding it up. Let me tell you the truth. We are debating it. We are holding it up.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steve Eugene Paproski: And we shall win.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I hear the interventions. I appreciate that members opposite are worried about the same thing. I am sure in their caucus the little man from the corner, little Jack Horner, is playing with his metric system. He must have told the government members what this means to the farmers and to the city people and about the millions and millions of dollars it will cost the Canadian taxpayer to change over.
I want to talk about the function of the opposition. You first have to look at the term Leader of the Official Opposition, Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.


An hon. Member:: Who is that?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Do not worry about him, he will come through. It was only a short time ago that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was away down low in the polls. Polls work like a yo-yo. I agree with the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker)-"poles" are made for dogs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: But even the law statutes refer to the Prime Minister as "Her Majesty's first minister of the Crown" and to the Leader of the Opposition as "The Leader of Her Majesty's
June 14, 1977

Loyal Opposition". What are our functions? We have been criticized for taking the position we have. I am pleased that I can stand here tonight and take the attack. But what are our functions?


Mr. Harquail:: What functions?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The hon. member asks "What functions?" How would he know a function? Being a sheep with the Liberals it is very easy to follow, especially coming from the riding he does. I know it. There are safe Tory ridings and there are safe Liberal ridings. It is very easy. I can understand his frustrations. If I sat where he did I would be frustrated too. He must be silent. He doesn't speak. He is not even allowed to think. He just follows like a sheep.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In dealing with this bill, the functions of the Official Opposition are comprehensive and important.


Maurice James Harquail: When are you going to start functioning as an opposition?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Well, any time you want to come over. We have lost some members to your side but 1 am sure we are going to gain some from yours. It may be a realigning of party policy. But I will put one question to you: Have you stood in your place? Have you made a speech on this bill tonight?


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I am tempted to break the rules. But one has to break rules when dealing with men who speak through the bottoms of their pants.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Maurice James Harquail: When are you going to deal with the bill?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am dealing with the criticism levelled at the opposition.


An hon. Member:: You can do that.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I thank the hon. member for that compliment. I cannot return the compliment because I don't think he is a good backbencher. He is too silent.
The functions of the Official Opposition are comprehensive and important and cannot and must not be limited to the definition given 120 years ago-


An hon. Member:: What's that?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: And, by the way, Paul Martin who is now the High Commissioner in London-


An hon. Member:: Tell us about the bill!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Do members over there intend to holler and shout all through my speech? I will tell the hop. member what I will do.
Metric System


Maurice James Harquail: I have watched you do that for years. I have been listening to you do that ever since I arrived here.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Well, I have watched you. You don't have to sit here, go back to your office, you idiot!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steve Eugene Paproski: Go back to your seat, at least.


Maurice James Harquail: You are not running this House yet.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am not running it yet but-


Maurice James Harquail: And you never will be.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I put this question to the hon. member through you, Mr. Speaker. I am glad he has gone back to his seat. He is starting to learn the rules. What contribution has he ever made to this parliament since he came here?


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Maurice James Harquail: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Your Honour may have observed the unparliamentary remarks made in the course of the hon. member's contribution tonight. Since he did direct a question to me, I am very pleased to refer him to Hansard where he will find I have attempted to put on record the negative position adopted on most issues by the hon. member's party, which is purported to be the Loyal Official Opposition. That party has, apparently, no positive view on any of the issues before us. I may say I have spoken positively about transport problems, about maritime concerns-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I might bring it to the attention of the hon. member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail) that under the relevant standing order a question can be addressed to a member who has the floor, but an hon. member cannot rise to answer a question directed to him by an hon. member who has the floor. So I am afraid the hon. member is not permitted to give an answer to the question directed to him except by seeking the floor himself in due time, and answering the question then if he wishes to do so. I do not think the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) should be interrupted by an answer to a question he has asked in the course of his speech.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for putting things in a proper perspective. The hon. member who interrupted me suggested I had not put forward anything positive. Let me respond to that suggestion in the light of what I was saying about the functions of the opposition. I rose two weeks ago in the private members' hour in an effort to change a 150-year-old rule whereby a child of only seven years could be convicted of an offence. I asked for an amendment to be made to the law. And 1 will tell you, Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member and his friends did because they have no heart, no feeling for what happens to the kids in training schools and penitentiaries. They talked that bill out! That is the hon. member's contribution to parliament.

June 14, 1977
Metric System
I come back to what I was saying with reference to the functions of an opposition in the face of a bill such as this dealing with the metric system.


An hon. Member:: You are mad now!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, I am mad and I am glad somebody has said I am mad. I am going to be mad when it is proposed to change our history and traditions at a cost of millions of dollars for no good reason at all.
As I said, under the Torrens land system land was divided into acres, not hectares. It was divided into quarter-sections-


Len Marchand: Where did the acre start?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Well, I would say to the little minister of small business, who is as small as the business he is talking about and is small because he is not supporting our arguments, that in Kamloops they have lots and blocks. When they find out that they have a block for a minister they will know they are in a lot of trouble.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Iona Campagnolo: Unworthy of you!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It may be unworthy, but facts must come out tonight because we are fighting for our traditions.


Len Marchand: You are talking about this bill. Tell me how large an acre is.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is 1/640th of a section.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, and 160 rods.


Len Marchand: What is an acre and where did it start?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I will say this. "Acre" is from a Latin word, but acres, sections, townships, municipalities and counties come from the Torrens land system which developed the West. Mr. Speaker, I have never been interrupted so often in a speech by so many members.


Mr. Kaplan:: We want the bill.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: He wants the bill! They are like a girl who wants the pill. They always want something.


An hon. Member:: Oh! Where is Horner?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You have got Horner. He was going to change all these things. Where was he today when the vote was being taken? He was absent. That worries me because I did believe he was conscientious in thinking that he could do more within the cabinet than outside it. Now he is not only outside the cabinet but he is outside parliament.
Let me come back to the point I was making. I want to refer to something which Mr. Paul Martin said, the present High Commissioner in England. He said that the duty of the opposition is to oppose everything and to turn out the govern-

ment. That is what he said when he was in the opposition. I felt that was hard lines. I opposed the Hon. Paul Martin, who was quite a gentleman, when he said that. Realizing now what kind of government we have and what they have done to parliament, they should be criticized by the opposition. Perhaps we have not carried out our role. We have always taken the affirmative and we have been criticized for that. During the last election we were criticized about wage and price controls, which was the big issue. That was a positive approach. The Liberals took a negative approach. The election was over, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) returned to Sussex Drive and he brought in wage and price controls.


Steve Eugene Paproski: He deceived the people of Canada.


An hon. Member:: You have lost a year.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Maybe the hon. member is correct and I have lost a year, but Canada has lost ten years under the Trudeau government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Now we are being criticized because we are opposing this bill.


An hon. Member:: What have we lost because of the Conservative government?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I read the speech of a gentleman whom I have always admired. I have not always agreed with him, but I certainly asked him many questions.


Iona Campagnolo: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You can mutter, you can sputter, but I am talking about Lester B. Pearson. He made a speech at a Canadian Club luncheon and quoted with affection a former prime minister who was a Conservative. He said:
It holds its opposition partly because of its great traditions. It has fought kings and dismissed them. It has raised up an army to destroy a king and was itself destroyed by its army; only to recall another king and to rise up again on the site of its own destruction. It has been modified and reformed to meet the changes of centuries. It has been led by the greatest men that the country has produced ...
He was talking about the British-Pitt the Elder and Pitt the Younger, Sir Robert Peel, Disraeli, Gladstone and Lloyd George. This country has had great prime ministers. We have had Macdonald, Laurier, Meighen, Mackenzie King-


An hon. Member:: And R. B. Bennett.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, we have had R. B. Bennett. I will stop at this point and digress for a few moments. History has not been very fair to R. B. Bennett. The depression was on in 1930 when Mr. Bennett, who was from my city, took office. The late Mackenzie King said that there would be one five cent piece for the unemployed in any province in which the premier is a Conservative, and that destroyed the Liberal Party. It may have been said deliberately. At the time Mr. Bennett was in office there were ten million people in Canada, and he came
June 14, 1977

from a little cow town of 15,000. Mr. Bennett is now being played up as quite a man: he defeated Ramsay MacDonald, a Labour leader in England where there were six million unemployed; he defeated Eloover in the United States; he created Mussolini and Hitler; and he created a world depression. What Mr. Bennett really created was the Bank of Canada to control our currency. He brought in prairie farm rehabilitation-


Stanley Howard Knowles: He brought in public broadcasting as well.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, I will deal with that. Actually, he brought in the Canadian Wheat Board; he brought in prairie farm assistance; and he brought in the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. He did a lot for Canada, but because there was unemployment and he inherited a depression in Canada, he was played down like all the leaders of his time and was defeated. I am glad to put it on the record that a man from my town did all that. When I see these Liberals speak with great affection for the Canadian Wheat Board, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, and the Bank of Canada, and they put their hands over their hearts with the great feeling that only Liberals can express, then 1 know that they have never understood history and cannot live with it. I am glad to stand here tonight, a member from the city of Calgary, and defend the man who inherited the depression from the Liberals. That is the truth, Mr. Speaker.
I have said we have had great Prime Ministers and I have explained the function of the opposition. We have had John A. Macdonald, William Lyon Mackenzie, Wilfrid Laurier, Mackenzie King, Arthur Meighen, R. B. Bennett, St. Laurent, Diefenbaker, Pearson. All those men made a contribution to this country and with one exception had to play the role of the opposition. That is what I am playing tonight. They were browbeaten, yelled at, heckled and belittled as 1 am because I dare stand on what I believe in for western Canada-our traditions and our history.
I was belittled the last time 1 made a speech particularly by the Minister of State (Small Business) (Mr. Marchand) who is from a very small town. He seems to believe there is nothing in the metric system that offends our history. Surveyors went out and created quarter sections, sections, townships, municipalities. They created roads and made their surveys over hill, valley, river and mountain. That was all done by people who believed that we could develop a great country and that great country is now the breadbasket of the world.
As a native son of Saskatchewan, a province of which I am so proud, I never thought the day would come that my adopted province of Alberta, because of the incentives given to those who wanted to explore and develop gas and oil, would establish us as one of the few nations in western world self-sufficient in oil and gas. I never thought I would see the day in Alberta in 1930 when, under an unusual government, they could not pay the interest on their bonds.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: You are afraid to talk about metric.
Metric System


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am not afraid. I have made a speech on metric and now I want to give you a little of the history and tradition of the west and why we feel so deeply.
The day came when not only did we pay the interest on our bonds but we blew in Leduc No. 1 which was to make Canada self-sufficient in oil and gas. Today we have a surplus of natural gas. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien) stood proudly in his place recently and said we could export natural gas to the United States because we had a surplus. That is the climate we have created in western Canada.
When it comes to hectares, as I said in my first speech on the subject, I only knew one "Hector" and that was a horse my grandfather had. I will not go into the details of what he did but that was the only Hector that was worthwhile.
In the land titles offices every person who owns an interest in oil and gas and every farmer who has land registered in his name without an encumbrance can transfer the title quite cheaply. That is the history and tradition that built the breadbasket of the world and built the area which supplies Canada with oil and energy to keep us self-sufficient. That is what this argument is about; that is what this debate is about.
Now I want to come back to the criticisms that have been levelled against us.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I appreciate that. I appreciate my friends; they are good friends of mine. They mean well, they are good people. Let me tell them what Mike Pearson said-I am sure hon. members opposite would not turn against him-when he dealt with the opposition.


An hon. Member:: You don't have a leader now.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Is that not a strange thing? The Mafia is not my leader.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: He wrote:
If parliament is to be preserved as a living institution, His Majesty s Loyal Opposition must fearlessly perform its functions. When it properly discharges them the preservation of our freedom is assured. The reading of history proves that freedom always dies when criticism ends. It upholds and maintains the rights of minorities against majorities.
We have a majority government now. There is one thing about Alberta. They used to have no Liberals; now their Liberal caucus consists of one member. But remember, we are the minority. I understand my position.


An hon. Member:: Oh, this really hurts!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It does not hurt me.


Iona Campagnolo: Then why have you been talking about it all day?

June 14, 1977
Metric System


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have not been talking about it all day. You must have had a night dream.


An hon. Member:: A nightmare.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: There are nightmares and nightmares. But I do not intend to get off the track. Over the years when I have spoken, I have not digressed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Anyone who levels that charge knows he is most insincere.
I will go back to what I was saying. What did Mr. Pearson say in that great speech about the opposition? He went on to say:
It should supervise all expenditures and prevent overexpenditure by exposing to the light of public opinion wasteful expenditures or worse.
Let me pause there. Can hon. members believe that in days when growth is just about zero, when we have almost one million unemployed, when we pour out money like the Social Crediters who are not in the House tonight, when we have the highest rate of inflation, the highest interest rates, the highest housing costs, the highest cost of living, the government brings out a bill on metric conversion! This great government!


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: This conversion will cost us another $500 million.


Steve Eugene Paproski: That is only for starters.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The little businessman, the little business minister, or the minister with little business-whatever you want to call him-screws up his face, he is upset. Of course he is upset. He has to go back and talk to the people about the metric system. He has never sat in the opposition. He does not understand what we are up against with that great, powerful majority who stand together through thick and thin.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I would rather have a few members. I would rather have a few members of the Tory party who might walk across the floor, who might differ, because if I thought that I belonged to a party where everybody had to think alike,
I would know there was no thinking at all.


An hon. Member:: You could not do that anyway.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What is the function of the opposition? Why am I speaking tonight?


An hon. Member:: Yes, why?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The opposition is to arouse, educate and mould public opinion by voice and by vote. The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Horner) said to us in his private chambers and in his open way that he would fight this bill to death, but he was not here for the vote.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The opposition must scrutinize every action of the government and in doing so prevent the shortcuts through democratic procedure which governments like to make.
Let me pause there for a few moments. Do hon. members know what 90 per cent of the law is about, whether it has to do with metric conversion or any other matter? Ninety per cent of our law is manufactured by order in council, by some unknown body. That is what this government is going to do to the farmers and the city people of western Canada and to the gas and oil industry. It is going to thrust and ram conversion through.
I call this parliamentary insemination. An hon. minister opposite shakes his head. He is the one who destroyed Time and Reader's Digest.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I feel sorry for him.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired, and there does not seem to be unanimous consent to allow the hon. member to continue.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, if I thought for a moment that my restraint and the restraint of my colleagues would permit this bill to progress any more rapidly, I would not have stood up, but we can see from the way the debate has deteriorated this will not happen. In the speech the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) just completed he spent perhaps two minutes on metric conversion, and the rest of his time was spent on the rationalization of the joys of being in the opposition. I hope that is a joy the opposition will have for many years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: There is also a burning regret that hon. members opposite have lost a very good member, the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Horner), to our side of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, 1 wonder if the hon. member would answer a question.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I will answer the hon. member's question at the end of my remarks.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I hope the hon. member will answer before 10.30.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: After the demonstration of how clever the hon. member opposite is, I am not certain whether I can answer his question, but I will certainly try.

June 14, 1977

What I want to do is put an historical perspective on metric conversion. This is not the first metric conversion Conservatives in this country have opposed. As the hon. member began to mention, 120 years ago this country abandoned farthings, shillings, pence, crowns, pounds and guineas. That was done in the face of a tremendous amount of opposition by Conservatives in this country. Many arguments were made. It was argued that if we were to go to metric money, that would be the end of this country; there would never be an adjustment to it, it would be a festering sore and it would adversely affect commerce. Let us not have the argument of the Conservatives of those days. They said we should not have decimal currency. That was the hue and cry of Conservatives of those days.
I tried to find in the library this evening some of the fabulous arguments which were made in those days about Canada's metric conversion of 1858 because I know 100 years from now, when students of the subject look back at this debate, and particularly at the remarks of the hon. member for Calgary North, they will put his argument in the same box with the arguments which were made about Canada's conversion to metric money 120 years ago. I cannot document facts because the archives part of the library is locked up, but there were three main arguments. Only one of them had any merit. The first argument was that if we convert to decimal currency we will be eaten up by the United States because they have decimal money.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Well?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The hon. member says, well? I say, 120 proud years of independence since that critically monumental decision speak for themselves. We were not eaten up by the United States. Argument number one was baloney.
Argument number two was this: If we convert to decimal money, we will alienate the United Kingdom and our relations with the United Kingdom will be disturbed. Actually, the legislation we sent to Britain was overruled. The British lords of the treasury would not accept Canadian decimal currency conversion. They wanted us to preserve the glorious British tradition of money, ranging from pence to guineas. Mr. Speaker, we have maintained warm relations with the United Kingdom. We belong to the great Commonwealth of Nations. Therefore, argument number two also turned out to be baloney.
Argument number three, which was repeated in editorials from one end of the country to the other, letters to the editor, and speeches in this country's legislatures, was this: We cannot adopt the decimal currency, because you cannot divide the dollar evenly by seven. That is true, you cannot. You can divide the guinea evenly by seven. There was tremendous hue and cry about the damage we could cause this country's commerce if we were to adopt a decimal currency which you could not divide evenly by seven. After all, the week has seven days. It was inferred from that fact that if our unit of currency could not be readily divisible by seven, the commerce of this country would end. The arithmetic is right, but history has
Metric System
again proved the tremendous advantage of adopting a simple, universal, decimal currency.
Without doubt, events will soon prove, as we adopt the metric system and so integrate our measuring system with that of many other countries of the world, that this government's approach was correct. Its approach has taken a great deal of courage. Actually, I am surprised to note that in some parts of the country courage is necessary in order to bring about conversion. I suggest that in a few years all the arguments which have been made by the opposition will end up on the same shelf of comic history to which has been relegated all the arguments against the adoption of a decimal currency.


Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) who apparently went to the library to do some research.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: It was closed.


Walter David Baker: So is his mind.


Douglas Charles Neil: Apparently he was able to gather some information although, obviously, he does not understand what we are debating this evening. I do not think he has been in the House listening to the debate. He suggests the Official Opposition opposes the metric system, and has gone back some 100 years to support his argument. He will see if he reads Hansard that we, on my side of the House, do not oppose metric conversion, per se, but we do oppose metric conversion as it affects the farmer of western Canada.


An hon. Member:: We oppose conversion without
consultation.


Walter David Baker: That is why I say the hon. member's speech was all distortion.


Douglas Charles Neil: Obviously, he has not been to western Canada and neither he nor other members on his side have talked to farmers; otherwise, he would have heard what the farmers had to say and we would not be here tonight debating this bill. Because I suggest the government would have withdrawn the offending clauses of the bill.
I have lost count of how many times I have spoken in this House on the metric system and on this metric bill, but it is important to each and every individual residing on the prairies. They are concerned about acres, quarter sections, half sections and sections. When the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) was speaking, the minister responsible for piloting this bill through the House asked "What's an acre?". I could not understand what he meant when he said that.


Len Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I asked the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) a very open kind of question. If you read Webster's dictionary and look at the definition of an acre, you will see that an acre is really 43,560 feet. It started out as the amount of land a person could plough in a day with a team of oxen.


Douglas Charles Neil: That is very interesting.
6684

June 14, 1977
Metric System


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the point of order. The minister is talking about the amount of land a person can plough. If he reads the book on western Canada written by Mr. Toms, Q.C. in 1912, he will find out how an acre, quarter section, section, township and county were devised. If he wants to be illiterate, that is his privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It seems that the point of order was more a point of clarification and is now becoming a point of disagreement. We will come back to the hon. member for Moose Jaw.


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the clarification given by the minister as to what is an acre, the amount of land that a man can plough in one day with two oxen. However, I would point out that oxen have not been used in the west for many years. We have tractors now. May I call it 10.30, Mr. Speaker?


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

Wednesday, June 15, 1977