1982-05-14

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Some 16 months have gone by since the question of the disposition of the $9,060,000 of western grain producers' PFAA contributions held in the Prairie Farm Emergency Fund was debated in this House. Despite undertakings by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), no steps have been taken to make this money available for badly needed research and development of cereal grains. The emergency fund being non-interest bearing, the Government of Canada has, in effect, stolen millions of dollars in producers' money over the years, and since the debate some 16 months ago, $1,963,000, using Farm Credit Corporation rates. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers):
That this House condemn the Minister of Agriculture for having such a lack of interest in research and development and call upon the said minister to resign.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Madam Speaker, whereas all sectors of our society are facing disastrous economic effects because of the Liberal government's budget and its high interest rate policy, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers):
That this House instruct the Minister of Finance to introduce immediately a new budget offering specific aid to those individuals hardest hit by this government's high interest rate policies.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter which I sincerely hope will receive the support of all hon. members of this House. Section 37 of our new Constitution guarantees that there will be a federal-provincial conference held with native representatives within one year in order to discuss constitutional issues of concern to native people. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Keeper):
That this House reaffirm its commitment to serious negotiations with native leaders and request that the federal government provide adequate funding to major native groups so that they may be able to prepare their positions in advance of the constitutional conference.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (York South-Weston):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I would like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Don Valley East (Mr. Smith):
That this House assure the women of Canada that the issue of family violence, and especially of wife battering, is considered by all members of this House to be an extremely grave and alarming one; and that the Report on Violence in the Family, tabled in this House last Tuesday as a result of deliberations in committee by members from all sides of this House, will be given serious consideration by all members in recognition of the fact that wife battering takes place in every constituency across Canada, and affects one out of every ten women.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

May 14, 1982


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising to debate the motion?


Ursula Appolloni: Yes, Madam Speaker. This subject is far too important to be allowed to drop so easily in the House of Commons. I recommend, first of all, that the report from the committee be recommended reading in every school across Canada so that children will begin to learn from an early age that women are not chattels, that women are being battered, and that up until now society has unfortunately turned a blind eye.
I very much hope that as a result of this report, and of deliberations on all sides of the House, Canadian society will learn to treat women with respect, and will give them the protection they need.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, in rising to support this motion I want to say on behalf of my party that we very much regret what happened in the House yesterday, or at least the way in which the incident was reported yesterday, because I do not believe the House intended, yesterday or at any time, to belittle this report or the importance of it.
I want to say we commend the committee for its excellent report. We believe it is a very serious problem in the country, probably more widespread than is generally believed. We feel very strongly that not only should the House address itself to the report in this way, but that the government, through the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) and the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan), should address itself to this report so that the people who are the subject of the report, namely, battered wives, can receive the same protection of the laws of Canada as all other groups.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Madam Speaker, I too join with other members in this House in congratulating the committee for bringing forth such a report, and would urge the government to take immediate action on its implementation.


Madam Speaker:: Does the House agree to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, lack of faith in the ability of the Liberal government to run the affairs of the nation has forced the Canadian dollar to the 80cent level in international markets. This will result in higher interest rates, which it has done already, and higher prices for all imported goods. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields):
That the government immediately reverse its national energy policy and withdraw its silly budget before the Canadian dollar disappears right out of sight.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CALL FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF POLICIES TO GENERATE EMPLOYMENT-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, over a decade ago the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) dismissed unemployment as a regrettable side effect of inflation. The situation today is more than regrettable; it is alarming. Not a day goes by that we do not learn of more firms having to reduce their work force or of going bankrupt, of more and more Canadians joining the ranks of the unemployed, and of more Canadian communities, large and small, staggering to cope with economic and social burdens. Government continues to express its indifference to the very urgent and very pressing problems of this country, problems it created through mismanagement, by citing international influences and repeatedly stating it can do nothing until other nations act. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Ellis):
That the government stop passing what is now the devalued buck, and recognize and accept the fact that it can, indeed must, begin to implement sound economic policies, policies independent of outside conditions which would restore confidence in the business community, generate employment and get this nation back on its feet.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
 * *


FINANCE
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker,
I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter
May 14, 1982

that is becoming increasingly urgent and pressing. In view of the news that farm bankruptcies have risen 70 per cent in the first four months of this year, interest rates have passed the peak reached last November, and business bankruptcies are up 40 per cent over the same period last year, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy):
That this House unanimously requests that, upon his return from Helsinki, the Minister of Finance take the First major step toward an economic recovery program by tendering his resignation and calling for Governor Bouey's as well.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous agreement for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE LAW OF THE SEA
Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Hamilton West):: Madam Speaker, I too rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. For the last nine years a Law of the Sea has been negotiated in the United Nations, and at long last the United Nations has agreed to a Law of the Sea. The event has been referred to by some as the single most important international diplomatic event since the creation of the United Nations. Canada's ambassador, Alan Beesley, who played a major role in the talks over the years, has described the treaty as a compromise that is fair to all nations. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That this House commend the United Nations General Assembly for obtaining the broad consensus that it did on such an important issue in the modern-day history of mankind.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, the pay scales of the Canadian Armed Forces are unrealistic and very unfair relative to the private sector. The cost of living throughout Canada has forced many Armed Forces personnel to seek welfare to supplement their pay. Whereas this humiliation and degradation of the men and women who have chosen to serve their country are utterly contemptible and cannot be allowed
Oral Questions
to continue, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That this House direct the Minister of National Defence to review immediately the pay scales and benefit programs for the Canadian Armed Forces, with equity and fairness in mind, and reward the fine people who serve our country instead of punishing them with low wages, inadequate benefits and humiliating trips to the welfare offices.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Chris Speyer (Cambridge):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Mr. Arthur Erickson during the last week has asserted that he knew that he was going to be chosen to design the Canadian embassy in Washington two years prior to selection and prior to the appointment of a selection committee which was going to be constituted for that purpose. At any time did the Prime Minister have any discussions with Mr. Erickson, or were there any direct or indirect communications with Mr. Erickson which would cause him to believe that he would be selected?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member has got his facts wrong. That is understandable because there was a newspaper report, I believe on Monday or Tuesday, which quoted Mr. Erickson as having said that. But if the hon. member reads the newspaper of the next day he will find that the newspaper was stating an inaccuracy and that Mr. Erickson said the contrary.


QUERY RESPECTING POSSIBLE COMMUNICATIONS WITH SELECTED ARCHITECT
Chris Speyer: Madam Speaker, at any time, at any point in time prior to the selection of Mr. Erickson, did the Prime Minister has any discussion with Mr. Erickson, or were there any direct or indirect communications which would lead Mr. Erickson to believe that he was going to be appointed to build the embassy in Washington?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Madam Speaker, there were no direct or indirect indications to Mr. Erickson that he was going to build the embassy in Washington. He is one candidate amongst many. I knew he was in the competition. There was no indication by me or by anyone I know of, directly or indirectly, that he was guaranteed to have that contract.

May 14, 1982
Oral Questions


FACTORS INVOLVED IN CABINET DECISION
Chris Speyer: Did the Prime Minister have any discussions-I am not interested in guarantees-did he have any discussions with the architect, Mr. Erickson? And, finally, would the Prime Minister enumerate the factors that caused the cabinet to select Mr. Erickson, in preference to the designs of other architects who were preferred by the selection committee?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the reasons why Mr. Erickson was chosen are given in the press release which announced the choice, that he was one of the great architects of the world, that the cabinet felt that an embassy such as that in Washington, which is very prestigious, should be done by one of Canada's best architects. We made that choice, and we are satisfied with it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


TOURISM
Stan Darling: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State responsible for small business and tourism. The minister will know that, at this time of year, the concerns and interests of the two groups he represents in cabinet are intertwined. This year, as the summer holiday season approaches, the owners of thousands of small businesses-tourist resort operators and those directly associated in support of the tourist industry-are having more than their share of problems, due to the high interest rate policy of the government. Has the minister any special plan of action to aid these people, many of whom cannot afford to borrow the money they need to prepare for the tourist season?


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Madam Speaker, last week I had the pleasure of attending Rendez-vous Canada in Calgary, an event organized to bring together members of the tourism industry with both domestic and foreign travel agents. This event lasted three days and, afterwards, it was found that $75 million worth of business had been done at Rendez-vous Canada, a very substantial increase over last year's results at Rendez-vous Canada in Halifax.
The volume of foreign and Canadian tourists visiting Canada has been increasing regularly during the last six years, and according to our forecast, this move upward will continue, and 1 am sure that people in the tourism industry will continue to make the necessary investments and offer a quality product which is the trademark of our industry.


IMPORTANCE OF TOURIST INDUSTRY-REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE
Stan Darling: Madam Speaker, the minister knows the potential of a healthy tourist industry and that it generates extra income for all sectors of our economy. He knows that in many regions, and especially in my region of Parry Sound-Muskoka, tourism is vital. Would the minister undertake to consult with his cabinet colleagues, and especially his cabinet colleague responsible for regional aid, and with him establish a plan of financial assistance for those in the tourist industry who need help now?


Charles Lapointe: Madam Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that he represents an area that is one of the most important for the Canadian tourism industry and one of the most pleasant regions to be visited in Canada. As for prospective or existing programs to help owners of tourism businesses to obtain financing, the hon. member is aware that there are agreements on tourism development between most provinces and the federal government. In most provinces, tourism businesses located in certain areas have access to special financing and grants to improve their facilities and maintain their level of quality service.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It concerns pricing, namely, the price spread between leaded and unleaded gasoline across Canada. There is some evidence to suggest that the oil companies may have used public confusion about the introduction of metric to justify yet another rip-off. I would like to ask the minister if he is aware that in January, 1979, in Ottawa the spread between the price of unleaded gasoline and the price of leaded gasoline was 4.9 cents per gallon. In May of 1982 the spread was 12.1 cents. Is the minister aware of this scandalous 145 per cent increase in about three years and, if not, will he investigate and take appropriate action to protect consumers from constantly being hosed at the pump?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. member that there is no legislation in Canada to control prices. Second, if the hon. member has some evidence of abuse-


Mark Willson Rose: I gave it to you.
May 14, 1982


André Ouellet: -he should convey it to the director of combines, and action will be taken.


INCREASED PRICES IN QUEBEC-REQUEST THAT MINISTER ORDER ROLLBACK
Mark Willson Rose: Madam Speaker, I know the minister is aware that because this industry operates across Canada it does come under his authority. He has the power to order such investigations, and I just made him aware of and gave him evidence.
This matter was the subject of a motion under Standing Order 43 a few days ago. The oil companies have a habit of taking every opportunity to maximize profits, usually at the expense of consumers. When the provincial sales tax was increased in Quebec, the companies piggybacked increases of three cents to four cents per litre on top of that sales tax. Now the sales tax has been rolled back. Has the minister investigated whether the oil companies have rolled back their prices similarly and, if he has not already done so, and if the evidence uncovered in his investigation justifies it, will he direct the oil companies to roll back these piggybacked increases?


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, there is a long-standing practice in Parliament that I cannot deny or confirm that an investigation under the Combines Investigation Act is taking place.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and it is related to the same matter. The Penner report made a number of recommendations dealing with the Northern Canada Power Commission. Will the minister set up territorial commissions for the NCPC? Also, will he write off the capital debt of the corporation, and will he give grants for hydroelectric development in the territories?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member may be aware, a press conference took place here about two weeks ago. At that time the government made that kind of commitment through various types of subsidies amounting to millions of dollars to defray the high cost of energy for northerners. That commitment was well received as a means of meeting these concerns.
I received the parliamentary report, and I want to congratulate members of the standing committee on it. When you add up the additional cost over and above the amounts which were committed in the conference of two weeks ago, you are talking
Oral Questions
about millions of dollars in the deficit alone-something like $50 million or $60 million for that one item. To move the head office north and put in subdivisions for each of the territories, as well as writing off the deficit, all mounts up to a heavy cost which the government will have to find out and consider. It can then decide whether it can meet some of these recommendations.
I can only say at this stage that we are taking the recommendations very seriously and are very conscious of the work and effort that were put into the report.


METRIC CONVERSION
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Several Canadian provinces have officially indicated their opposition to forced metric and have indicated that any transition ought to be purely voluntary. Public opinion polls conducted by the Metric Commission, although suppressed, show that metric is not gaining favour with the majority of the Canadian people.
The Attorney General of the province of Alberta has indicated in the Alberta legislature that his government may intervene in a court case against a Calgary woman charged with advertising carpet for sale by the square yard and by the metre using both measurements.
In the face of rising opposition and increased unpopularity, will the minister indicate whether the government is willing to consider dropping the forced aspect of metric and allowing merchants to conduct their business in the system of their choice, that is, a voluntary system?


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, this very long preamble does not allow me to answer all the aspects of the points raised by the hon. member during question period. We will have a debate later today on the subject and I will answer every point raised in the numerous questions asked by the hon. member. I can indicate to him that indeed, if all parties in government have approved going metric in Canada, it was done because it was in the interests of Canada. If some people now have second thoughts about it, particularly Conservative Members of Parliament, that is their right. But they should not pretend that it is in the best interests of Canadians, because it is not in the best interests of Canada to prevent metric.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Madam Speaker, if the rules of the House would allow it, I would like to say that the minister is misleading the House, because forced metric was never agreed to by this party nor was it ever agreed to in this House. The minister had better get that straight.

May 14, 1982
Oral Questions


APPLICATION OF METRIC SYSTEM TO CATTLE INDUSTRY
Thomas Gordon Towers: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Cattlemen in Alberta went to considerable expense to get a commitment from the Minister of Agriculture that there would be no enforcement of the metric system in the cattle industry in Alberta until January, 1984. Now we have heard from a reliable source that an order in council will be passed and metric will be enforced in the cattle industry in January, 1983, instead of 1984. Is this true or not?


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, again this is a good example of a bunch of Conservatives trying to brew the pot. There is no substance in the hon. member's allegation, and it is again a clear indication of people deliberately twisting the facts in trying to make a case out of a lost cause.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Madam Speaker, my question is supplementary to one asked earlier and has to do with the process surrounding the appointment of Mr. Erickson. In light of reliable information I have that, in connection with the due and proper appointment of consultants with respect to work at the Halifax dockyard, on three occasions these appointments were reversed by the Secretary of State and his colleague, the Minister of Finance, I ask the Prime Minister if this is the normal procedure. Is this indeed the policy of the government or cabinet? Consulting engineers and other professional groups expect the government to adhere to a proper process with respect to appointments in these general categories.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I do not know what the hon. member is referring to when he quotes those specific cases, and I hear the Secretary of State say that he does not know what the hon. member is talking about.
The hon. member is asking questions about due process. I am not sure what he would consider due process, or what the opposition party considered due process when it was in power. There is a procedure, Madam Speaker, as everyone knows, that when there are contracts involved above a certain amount of money there must be bids, they must be opened, and consideration must be given to them. But as far as I know, when it comes to choosing architects or engineers and there are no bids involved, there is a certain discretion left to the cabinet, and I believe it was always thus.
I indicated in the House the other day it was important that the candidates for appointment, no matter what their number, be judged as competent and qualified-


Jack Wendele Shields: Liberals.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -either by the professional bodies or the departments involved. But beyond that, certainly there is a measure of discretion in the choice by the government.


PROCEDURE IN AWARDING CONTRACTS
J. Michael Forrestall: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Sectretary of State since he does not seem to be aware of what it is I am talking about. Did the minister have occasion to intervene and question the appointment of Beasy Nicoll, consulting engineers in Halifax, with respect to work on the Syncrolift in Halifax, and does he have any knowledge of the Minister of Finance intervening earlier last year in connection with the ship repair unit and Jetty 2 reconstruction?
The questions, Madam Speaker, are rhetorical, and the minister can reply if he wants to, but my basic question is whether this is the process and procedure which professional groups can now expect with respect to the proper awarding of contracts for consulting and other professional work.


Hon. Gerald Regan (Secretary of State):: Madam Speaker, I want to say to the hon. member that I have no knowledge of the particular case he mentioned, and I certainly did not intervene in that instance. Let me go further and remind him of the words of Senator Muir when he was a Conservative member in this House from Nova Scotia, that there is a responsibility on those in elected positions to make some selection in circumstances such as those just described by the Prime Minister. If a selection has to be made in circumstances where tenders cannot be called, that is for engineers or architects, far better that the selection be made by elected people who have to answer to the public, than by bureaucrats who are in a position of favouring their friends without ever having to answer to the public on the wisdom of their choice and whether the people selected were competent or not.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AIRPORTS
Mr. Robert Gourd (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. About three months ago, Madam Speaker, in answer to a question I put to the minister when the thirty-three North Shore mayors were present in the House, he said that a document was being considered by cabinet and that the mayors would receive an answer on or about May 18 of this year. We are getting closer to that date, Madam Speaker, and my question is: Is this same document still being considered by cabinet and when does the minister intend to give his answer, on the 18th or the 19th?
May 14, 1982


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to explain why I made this promise. I am thoroughly convinced that a decision must be made on the question of transferring certain routes from Dorval to Mirabel. That is why I undertook to submit a proposal to my cabinet colleagues. I said I would do so in May, and I still hope to do so this month.


SUBMISSION MADE BY MAYORS IN WEST MONTREAL
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Madam Speaker, I hope the Minister of Transport will also give full consideration to the submission of the mayors from the west island of Montreal not to move any of those flights from Dorval until all sides of this question have been considered.
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is in fact the whole point of the exercise, namely to consider and analyse all possible and conceivable proposals, to weigh the pros and cons, bearing in mind that it will be impossible to please everybody, because the positions on this issue go from the absolute negative to the totally positive. My purpose is therefore to make a decision on the basis of a comprehensive knowledge of the facts and consequences.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg-St. James):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration concerning the voluntary affirmative action program. As the minister has long been aware, no affirmative action agreement has been signed in Manitoba over a period of seven years. A government memo has now come to light as direction to the affirmative action consultants, which reads as follows:
-you will not promote Affirmative Action nor visit employers in this regard. In addition, you will not conduct any seminars or disseminate any information to the field to explain or promote Affirmative Action.
The public would like to know, Madam Speaker, just what level of commitment the government has to affirmative action.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member should know that this government is very deeply committed to affirmative action. It has introduced a major program in the federal public service, which the President of the Treasury Board is responsible for, and which is having very major success. In reference to that particular item which appeared as a news story,
Oral Questions
Madam Speaker, I was distressed to learn that such a memo might exist and I have asked for a full investigation as to its purpose. If that in fact was the direction given, it is in total contradiction to the policies of my department and this government.


REQUEST FOR INTRODUCTION OF MANDATORY PROGRAM
Cyril Keeper: Madam Speaker, the voluntary affirmative action program has been in place federally for four years and only 27 companies out of 750 approached have signed. The minister's own colleague, the minister responsible for the status of women, has said that the results of this program have been bleak. After four years of a voluntary program is it not now time to introduce a mandatory program based on the concept of contract compliance?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, the hon. member may not be aware that there is already in process the development of new policies and programs in affirmative action. However, unlike the hon. member and his colleagues who do not believe in consulting with the private sector on any matters at all, we have been engaging in very serious discussions with business and labour so that we will develop a program based upon agreement, not on confrontation which is usually the advice we receive from the NDP.


Miss Jewett:: You better consult with your consultants.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport, and I think it will be a little easier to field than the ones he had from the hon. member for Argenteuil-Papineau and the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East. I can assure you that we on this side are watching the Dorval-Mirabel question with very great interest.
A couple of weeks ago the Minister of Transport said that he would be meeting with officials from Nordair about Nor-dair's indications with respect to servicing Hamilton civic airport. Can the minister report on that meeting?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I am sorry it has not been arranged yet, but it will take place very soon.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Clearly the minister is working on metric time, Madam Speaker!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

May 14, 1982
Oral Questions


REQUEST THAT NORDAIR BE ASKED FOR COMMITMENT TO SERVICE
Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Madam Speaker, because Nordair is clearly planning to cut back on service at the Hamilton civic airport which, as the minister well knows, services the entire southern Ontario-Hamilton-Brantford-Niagara region, will he insist when he does meet with Nordair officials that the airline lives up to its commitment and continues to service the Hamilton civic airport, as that airline promised to do when was placed under the aegis of Air Canada?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development was just talking to me, so I have lost a bit of the hon. member's question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Do you want me to ask it
again?


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, Madam Speaker. The important thing to underline is that Nordair is not going to make a decision changing the status quo without consulting with me and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development fully. That is pretty solid stuff.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Luc Pepin: I rest my case.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


FINANCE
Mr. John Gamble (York North):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance I will direct my question to the Minister of State for Finance. On November 12, the Minister of Finance tabled a budget in this House projecting a deficit for the current fiscal year of $10.49 billion. Since that time government expenditures have increased because of economic circumstances, and revenues have declined. It has been anticipated by some that the current deficit will amount to something in the neighbourhood of $15 billion or more. Can the minister tell the House whether the Department of Finance has drafted new anticipated deficit figures? If so, will he supply the House with the information which those figures would disclose?
[ Translation]


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State (Finance)):: Madam Speaker, the Department of Finance's new figures are not ready yet and I do not wish to speculate on what those figures will be.


John Albert Gamble: Madam Speaker, I am rather surprised that six months after debate of the budget none of those figures are
available, because it must be apparent to all in government that they are very badly out of date.


FOREIGN AID EXPENDITURES-REQUEST FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
John Albert Gamble: Madam Speaker, last evening at the regular meeting of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, members of that committee heard the president of CIDA explain that the total budgetary expenditures of government with respect to foreign aid are standing at $1,724 billion. This is at a time when farm bankruptcies have increased 70 per cent and general bankruptcies in Canada 39 per cent in the first quarter of this year. As well, unemployment has increased. Some members of the committee were of the view that these expenditures on foreign aid were out of line having regard to the circumstances in the country. Will the minister consider recommending to his colleagues that the issue of the quantum of foreign aid paid by this government be referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence for an in-depth study and report to the House?
[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, perhaps the hon. member could stop staring at his navel and take a look outside the country, and then consider the problems facing those countries that are receiving development aid from Canada. He would realize that there is every justification for this aid, considering the poverty in those countries and the relative prosperity of Canadians in this country.


PUBLIC WORKS
Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. For the sake of the economy is the Prime Minister considering postponing the construction of the embassy in Washington? As well, does he think that Canada can afford to construct such a project at this time of economic difficulties?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the work of the embassy staff is done in Washington, I believe, in a series of buildings. In view of the fact that the United States remains our most important economic and political power, it would seem to me that it is self-evident that a building housing all the embassy personnel which will make their work efficient and effective should proceed. I believe the amount involved is some $38 million, or a figure in that area. That is an important building, Madam Speaker, and as the
May 14. 1982

hon. member knows, the Government of Canada is building more expensive buldings in various cities across Canada which are needed to ensure the federal government is be able to discharge its services in various parts of the country.


REQUEST FOR POSTPONEMENT
Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, maybe it is self-evident to the Prime Minister and his cabinet that a building of this nature is needed at this time in a foreign country which, incidentally, will create jobs there, but at a time when Canadians are biting the dust, why do we need to construct a new embassy? Rental facilities can certainly do for another five years. They have been fine up to now. Where are the priorities of this government when people are biting the dust as a result of unemployment right across the country? I find the situation ludicrous. I would like an answer from the Prime Minister.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I cannot give the details of the particular reason why that building is being built at this time. 1 have given them in general terms. The same question, I suppose, could be asked of the United States government, which is planning to build a new embassy here, which is going to cost a lot of money at a time when there is high unemployment in other countries. I do not think that the hon. member and his party are suggesting that we cease to have international relations, and to have them in acceptable conditions, when there are economic difficulties in Canada because that applies, as the hon. member knows, to most other countries.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Jack Burghardt (London West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. He will know that some time ago I brought to the attention of the appropriate authorities my concern regarding a teflon coated bullet known sadistically as the "cop-killer". Given that the Assembly of the State of California recently outlawed the manufacture and sale of this bullet which can pierce layers of protective armour, house walls and even an automobile engine block, will the minister give his assurance that his department will press ahead urgently with the requested investigation, and if this bullet is available in Canada will the minister see to the eventual prohibition of this extraordinarily dangerous bullet?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the problem in Canada is quite different from that in the United States. In my view, no change in the law is required. Teflon bullets are widely available in the United States. But in Canada, since 1972, they have been on a list which restricts their use to police departments. There are very few in Canada to my knowledge, and in
Oral Questions
fact no import permits have been authorized by the government since 1976.


CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Yesterday the CPR announced lay-offs for three weeks of 3,800 shop craft employees in Montreal, Winnipeg and Calgary. That four-week lay-off is added to the three-week holiday. This means that the shops will be closed for seven weeks. Considering that the Wheat Board is projecting a 50 per cent increase in sales in the next few years, and we are projecting an increase of 100 per cent in the export of potash and an increase of 300 per cent in the export of coal, is this not the time for the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to get together with the CPR and the CNR, which has also announced lay-offs, and suggest to them that now is the time, when business is slow, to upgrade freight cars, tracks, engines and signal equipment so that when the new sales come onstream they will be able to move the goods rather than tell the country that they cannot move the products we can sell?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, that is not bad reasoning, but we are now in a rather difficult situation. There is a slump in the export and domestic traffic of raw commodities. At the same time, grain is doing extremely well, as the hon. member and everyone should know. It is doing extremely well at this moment.
However, at the same time, discussions are taking place on the Crow, we have the Gilson exercise, and the railways are uncertain, quite understandably, about the results. This is the explanation for the particular situation we are in now with respect to the railways.
I might add that the CP employees who are being laid off- I thought it was for 20 days on top of the usual two weeks- will be compensated, of course, by UIC payments, and more because of some clauses in their contract. I am informed that in most cases it might add up to 80 per cent of their salary. I realize this may not be good economic thinking but it is reasonable humanitarian thinking.


David Orlikow: I am not blaming the companies. I realize that traffic is down and their cash flow is not very good. But surely we can follow the example of countries like Japan and France which say that we should not worry too much about today's events but plan for three, five or ten years from now.


REQUEST THAT EMPLOYEES BE RETAINED IN EMPLOYMENT
David Orlikow: Madam Speaker, given the projections of tremendously increased sales of these bulk commodities, is it not now the time-instead of two years

May 14, 1982
Oral Questions
from now-for the government to get together with the companies so they can keep people at work to prepare for the future?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I think that the managers of CN, and I am sure CP as well, have that in mind. I was talking to the president of CN and there is no doubt that had it not been for this contemplation for the future CN might have laid off more employees than they are actually laying off. They might have reduced their capital budget more than they have done.
These managers are quite wise. They have in mind the events of the near future to which the hon. member refers.


FINANCE
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. Since the Minister of Finance has refused to increase the child care deduction from $1,000 which was established in 1975, while child care costs have soared in the meantime, and since the Prime Minister receives the free services of a nanny for the care of his children, in order to restore some measure of equity to the Income Tax Act will the Minister of National Revenue invoke Section 6 of the Income Tax Act and include a taxable benefit in the income of the Prime Minister?


Some hon. Members:: Answer the question.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Pembina.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Peter Elzinga: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. On April 30 the Prime Minister gave a commitment in the House to the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona that he would investigate allegations surrounding the 17 RCMP officers who are charged in the Quebec courts that there were some partisan overtones because of his government's involvement. Could he now reveal to the House the results of his inquiries into those allegations.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I honestly do not remember the case to which the hon. member refers. Would he be more specific and I will perhaps ask the Solicitor General to assist me in the answer.


ALLEGED GOVERNMENT INVOLVED IN FORCE'S ACTIVITIES
Peter Elzinga: Madam Speaker, I am referring specifically to the 17 RCMP officers who were charged before the Quebec courts. The allegation is that his
government was directly involved in instructing those officers to become involved in inquiring into separatism in Quebec. I must say that I am somewhat suprised at the Prime Minister's lack of interest since it is suggested that he was directly involved in giving those instructions. Would the Prime Minister either confirm or deny the allegation?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I remind hon. members that the allegations about senior authority for the conduct of the RCMP during the 1970s in relation to separatism was the subject of a Royal commission, one of the longest in the history of Canada. That Royal commission had full access to and examined all the records of the government and the RCMP, and conducted a very thorough investigation. The commission found that members of this government as well as former members were not involved in the acts which were found to have taken place by the commission.


Peter Elzinga: I would remind the minister that the Chief Justice inquiring into that was at one time the Alberta party president of the Liberal party.


EXISTENCE OF PERTINENT DOCUMENTATION
Peter Elzinga: Madam Speaker, I would ask the minister if he would give us an unequivocal assurance that no documentation relating to this case has been destroyed or will be destroyed.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I will take note of the question because I want to be perfectly sure about the documentation to which the hon. member is referring. The file destructing policies have been discontinued in relation to documentation touching the matters that the McDonald Commission investigated. However, the RCMP is a large organization. There are tremendous accumulations of files, and file destruction policies do exist in the RCMP for the disposal of routine Files which are no longer required or relevant to ongoing matters.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The departmental review of the implementation of the James Bay and Norther Quebec Agreement was completed some months ago. Early this year that report's recommendations went to Cabinet.
The James Bay Cree, the Inuit, and other interested parties in the House and across the country are anxious to know what those recommendations are. In addition, the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development wants to examine the adequacy of those recommendations. We would like to do so before our current reference expires at the end of
May 14, 1982

this month. Would the minister tell us how soon we can expect those recommendations to come forth from Cabinet?


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, the hon. member may be aware that the draft report-the so-called Tait Report-with respect to the alleged breaches in the James Bay Agreement, was sent both to the Cree and the Inuit on more or less a confidential basis. However, we dealt with them in an open fashion so we could get their comments to see if these recommendations were adequate and whether the analysis was good. We did get their comments and we incorporated them.
The Cabinet is in the midst of deliberating on them now, and I would expect a decision from cabinet reasonably soon. Of course it will be announced in the usual fashion at that time.


FINANCE
Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. For several years now the number one economic priority of the government has been to wrestle inflation to the ground. The United States government has been successful in bringing that country's inflation rate under control, largely by substantive government spending reductions and a 30 per cent across-the-board tax cut. Is the government considering, or will it consider, substantial reductions in government spending and a 30 per cent tax cut for Canadians?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Canadian government through its indexing policy, particularly as it applies to taxation, has effectively cut taxes for the past several years to a total of several billions of dollars. I believe that the United States is catching up to our good example.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Unfortunately, the President of the United States has proven to be a more successful wrestler than our Prime Minister. Perhaps he could use some more coaching.


EXCHANGE VALUE OF DOLLAR
Robert Lloyd Wenman: In view of the serious damage being done to the Canadian economy as a result of high interest rates, is the Prime Minister considering pegging the Canadian dollar to the United States dollar? In order to stabilize the dollar further, has the Prime Minister considered intervening in the forward money markets as well as in the day-to-day money markets?
Order Paper Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The answer to the first question is no, Madam Speaker. The answer to the second question is a bit too complicated for me to answer with a yes or no. I can say that there is no intervention by the bank in the money market except to iron out occasional fluctuations.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF SENATOR CULVER WELL, THE GOVERNMENT LEADER OF ZIMBABWE'S UPPER HOUSE AND DEPUTY MINISTER OF EDUCATION
Madam Speaker:: I would like to draw the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery of Senator Culverwell, the government Leader of Zimbabwe's Upper House and Deputy Minister of Education.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table the reports of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petitions presented by hon. members on Thursday, May 13, 1982, and finds that the petitions meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@for the President of the Privy Council: for leave to introduce Bill C-113, to amend the Canada Elections Act (No. 2).


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 2,825, 2,838, 2,839, 2,844, 2,847, 2,850, 2,856, 2,857, 2,864, 2,882, 2,922, 2,938, 2,945, 2,946, 2,976, 2,982, 3,126, 3,127, 3,549, 3,619 and 4,227.

May 14, 1982
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Clarke: 1.	With reference to the education leave costs recorded by the Department of Labour at page 13.6, volume I of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, what guidelines were used to determine (a) which employees should obtain educational leave and whether such employees should be granted (i) leave with pay (ii) travel expenses (iii) payment for tuition (b) whether the skills to be acquired were needed on a permanent basis?
2.	What percentage of the education leave cost of $1,745 was necessitated by the acquisition of new equipment and by the need to have new skills in order to use the equipment?
3.	What percentage of the education leave was necessitated by reason of job redundancy because of the (a) acquisition of equipment (b) change in the role of the employing agency (c) change in the capabilities of employees?
4.	What percentage of employees granted such leave in the past three years have subsequently left the public service?


Gerald Augustine Regan: 1. (a) and (b) The
directives used in selecting an employee for educational leave were those of the Treasury Board Secretariat on Training and Development (PMM-10); the department also followed the guidelines of the Secretary of State Department (5A-110-5) mainly to determine what expenses should be paid.
2,	3 and 4. Nil percentage.


Mr. Clarke: 1.	With reference to the education leave costs recorded by the Department of the Solicitor General at page 13.6, volume I of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, what guidelines were used to determine (a) which employees should obtain educational leave and whether such employees should be granted (i) leave with pay (ii) travel expenses (iii) payment for tuition (b) whether the skills to be acquired were needed on a permanent basis?
2.	What percentage of the education leave cost of $27,592 was necessitated by the acquisition of new equipment and by the need to have new skills in order to use the equipment?
3.	What percentage of the education leave was necessitated by reason of job redundancy because of the (a) acquisition of equipment (b) change in the role of the employing agency (c) change in the capabilities of employees?
4.	What percentage of employees granted such leave in the past three years have subsequently left the public service?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: 1. (a) and (b) Treasury Board Policy: chapter 110 sub-chapter 5 of the Personnel Management Manual-Conditions Governing Education, Training and Development, including Subsidization.
2, 3 and 4. Nil.


Mr. Clarke: 1.	With reference to the education leave costs recorded by the Department of Supply and Services for supply administration at page 13.6, volume I of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, what guidelines were used to determine (a) which employees should obtain educational leave and whether such employees should be granted (i) leave with pay (ii) travel expenses (iii) payment for tuition (b) whether the skills to be acquired were needed on a permanent basis?
2.	What percentage of the education leave cost of $21,510 was necessitated by the acquisition of new equipment and by the need to have new skills in order to use the equipment?
3.	What percentage of the education leave was necessitated by reason of job redundancy because of the (a) acquisition of equipment (b) change in the role of the employing agency (c) change in the capabilities of employees?
4.	What percentage of employees granted such leave in the past three years have subsequently left the public service?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Purpose of leave in question: To grant education leave to an employee to train in Naval Architecture at the University of Michigan.
1.	(a) The selection of candidates for education leave is governed by the DSS education leave and reimbursement guidelines/policy which is derived directly from TB PMM guideline 110-5. Recommendations of supply education committee made up of all assistant deputy ministers are presented to the deputy minister for his approval. (This case was subsequently submitted to the Treasury Board for final approval).
(b)	This particular education leave submission was approved under TB 761920 guideline on the basis that it was consistent with anticipated departmental requirements.
2.	The Marine and Industrial Machinery Products Centre of Science and Engineering Procurement Service has an ongoing requirement for naval architects and marine engineers for projects such as the frigate and icebreaker programs. The age profile within the product centre indicated a high rate of attrition over the next few years. Efforts to recruit individuals in these disciplines have been unsuccessful due in part to the extremely small number of graduates available both in Canada and abroad. To obtain the necessary expertise, it was decided that the most practical procedure would be to select an engineer in a closely related discipline from the current internal officer program, and provide the opportunity to obtain a master's degree in naval architecture.
We are not able to breakdown the cost of the education leave in terms of needed skills and acquisition of new equipment as requested by this inquiry since these are non-applicable.
3.	There was no question of job redundancy, no acquisition of new equipment, nor change in the role of the agency, nor change in the capabilities of employees except for the reasons provided in item 2.
4.	Of the 10 employees granted education leave for supply administration for FY 1976-77, 1977-78, 1978-79 (three years), eight are still in the employment of DSS. Information is unavailable on the remaining two who may have transferred to other government departments or left the public service altogether. We are using the above fiscal years given the fact that most education leaves are granted for a period of one to two years and the obligation on the part of the employee to return to work for a period equivalent to the education leave time or reimburse the government for all the financial support received during the education leave.
May 14, 1982


Mr. Clarke: 1.	With reference to the education leave costs recorded by the Department of Veterans Affairs at page 13.6, volume I of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, what guidelines were used to determine (a) which employees should obtain educational leave and whether such employees should be granted (i) leave with pay (ii) travel expenses (iii) payment for tuition (b) whether the skills to be acquired were needed on a permanent basis?
2.	What percentage of the education leave cost of $27,504 was necessitated by the acquisition of new equipment and by the need to have new skills in order to use the equipment?
3.	What percentage of the education leave was necessitated by reason of job redundancy because of the (a) acquisition of equipment (b) change in the role of the employing agency (c) change in the capabilities of employees?
4.	What percentage of employees granted such leave in the past three years have subsequently left the Public Service?


Hon. W. Bennett Campbell (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1.	(a) and (b) Treasury Board Policy: chapter 110 sub-chapter 5 of the Personnel Management Manual-Conditions Governing Education, Training and Development, including Subsidization.
2,	3 and 4. Nil.


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Department of National Health and Welfare under the administration program at page 32.21, volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to hospitality services (a) how does the department account for the increase in expenditure for the item over that for 1978-79 (b) what is a list of each contract of a value more than $2,000 (c) are guidelines used to determine when the department will pay for hospitality and, if so, what are they (d) of the $17,680 paid for hospitality, what percentage was principally used to entertain (i) foreign visitors (ii) Canadian businessmen (iii) provincial public servants (iv) federal public servants (v) ministerial exempt staff (vi) Members of Parliament (vii) Members of Provincial Parliaments, Legislative Assemblies and the National Assembly (viii) Canadian dignitaries, such as the Governor General and Lieutenant Governors General (ix) federal Crown corporation executives (x) provincial Crown corporation executives (xi) members of federal commissions, boards and councils (xii) any other categories?


Mr. Doug Frith (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: (a) The department carried out an extensive reorganization during the fiscal year 1979-80 during which the following offices were incorporated into the administration program: (1) Special Advisor, Policy Development; (2) Welfare Information Systems Branch; (3) Policy, Planning and Information Branch; and (4) Federal-Provincial Liaison.
It is therefore necessary to include the expenditures incurred by these offices for hospitality during the fiscal year 1978-79 with those of the administration program for 1978-79 before a valid comparison between the two fiscal years can be made.
The hospitality expenditures for these offices totalled $5,187 during the 1978-79 fiscal year and when added to the amount reported for the administration program of $14,483 result in
Order Paper Questions
an adjusted total of $19,670. Comparing this figure to the hospitality expenditures incurred in 1979-80 results, in fact, in a decrease in expenditure of $1,990 or about 10 per cent.
(b)	The administration program made one payment in excess of $2,000 during the 1979-80 fiscal year. This payment was a reimbursement for expenditures incurred by Dr. J. A. Dupont on behalf of the department in extending hospitality to the Polish delegation during Polish-Canadian Health Week (November 5-12, 1979).
(c)	The department is subject to the policy on hospitality found in chapter 360 of the Treasury Board Administrative Policy Manual.
(d)	The amount of $17,680 is broken down on a percentage basis as follows:
(0	Foreign visitors	38(ii)	Canadian businessmen	4(iii)	Provincial public servants	17(iv)	Federal public servants	5(v)	Ministerial exempt staff	5(vi)	Members of Parliament	6(vii) (viii)	Federal Crown Corporations executives Members of federal commissions, boards and	2councils	4(ix)	Newspaper representatives	13(x)	Representatives of Native Peoples'	5organizations	(xi)	Recruitment	1


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Department of External Affairs for the Canadian International Development Agency at page 32.11, volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to hospitality services (a) what services does this entail (b) what is a list of each contract of a value more than $2,000 (c) are guidelines used to determine when the agency will pay for hospitality and, if so, what are they (d) of the $63,563 paid for hospitality, what percentage was principally used to entertain (i) foreign visitors (ii) Canadian businessmen (iii) provincial public servants (iv) federal public servants (v) ministerial exempt staff (vi) Members of Parliament (vii) Members of Provincial Parliaments, Legislative Assemblies and the National Assembly (viii) Canadian dignitaries, such as the Governor General and Lieutenant-Governors General (ix) federal Crown corporation executives (x) provincial Crown corporation executives (xi) members of federal commissions, boards and councils (xii) any other categories?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: (a) and (c) The extension of hospitality on behalf of the government is governed by Treasury Board Administrative Policy Manual, chapter 360.
(b) There were no individual hospitality claims in fiscal year 1979-80 of a value more than $2,000.
(d) Records are not maintained which would enable us to respond to this question without devoting an inordinate amount of time and reallocation of staff from regular duties.

May 14, 1982
Order Paper Questions


Mir. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Department of the Secretary of State for the National Museums of Canada at page 32.33, volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to hospitality expenses (a) what is a list of each contract of a value more than $2,000 (b) are guidelines used to determine when the department will pay for hospitality and, if so, what are they (c) of the $42,467 paid for hospitality, what percentage was principally used to entertain (i) foreign visitors (ii) Canadian businessmen (iii) provincial public servants (iv) federal public servants (v) ministerial exempt staff (vi) Members of Parliament (vii) Members of Provincial Parliaments, Legislative Assemblies and the National Assembly (viii) Canadian dignitaries, such as the Governor General and Lieutenant Governors General (ix) federal Crown corporation executives (x) provincial Crown corporation executives (xi) members of federal commissions, boards and councils (xii) any other categories?


Mr. Jack Masters (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: I am informed by the National Museums of Canada as follows:
(a)	During the fiscal year 1979-80 National Museums of Canada entered into one contract which was in excess of $2,000 re hospitality expenses. The company's name is Lolach-er's Catering Ltd. located in Ottawa and the payment amounted to $2,501.
(b)	N.M.C. Administrative Manual-Finance chapter VII sub-section 3000 derived from Treasury Board Administrative Policy Manual, chapter 360, hospitality.
(c)	Records are not maintained which would enable us to respond to this question without devoting an inordinate amount of time and reallocation of staff from regular duties.


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Department of the Secretary of State for the National Museums of Canada at page 32.33, volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to hospitality outside headquarters (a) what is a list of each contract of a value more than $2,000 are guidelines used to determine when the department will pay for hospitality and, if so, what are they (c) of the $17,692 paid for hospitality, what percentage was principally used to entertain (i) foreign visitors (ii) Canadian businessmen (iii) provincial public servants (iv) federal public servants (v) ministerial exempt staff (vi) Members of Parliament (vii) Members of Provincial Parliaments, Legislative Assemblies and the National Assembly (viii) Canadian dignitaries, such as the Governor General and Lieutenant Governors General (ix) federal Crown corporation executives (x) provincial Crown corporation executives (xi) members of federal commissions, boards and councils (xii) any other categories?


John Gerald (Jack) Masters: I am informed by the National Museums of Canada as follows:
(a)	National Museums of Canada did not enter into any contract, for hospitality, where the amount was in excess of $2,000.
(b)	N.M.C. Administrative Manual-Finance chapter VII sub-section 3000 derived from Treasury Board Administrative Policy Manual, chapter 360, hospitality.
(c) Records are not maintained which would enable us to respond to this question without devoting an inordinate amount of time and reallocation of staff from regular duties.


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Treasury Board for Statistics Canada at page 32.41, volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to hospitality services (a) what is a list of each contract of a value more than $2,000 (b) are guidelines used to determine when the department will pay for hospitality and, if so, what are they (c) of the $8,298 paid for hospitality, what percentage was principally used to entertain (i) foreign visitors (ii) Canadian businessmen (iii) provincial public servants (iv) federal public servants (v) ministerial exempt staff (vi) Members of Parliament (vii) Members of Provincial Parliaments, Legislative Assemblies and the National Assembly (viii) Canadian dignitaries, such as the Governor General and Lieutenant Governors General (ix) federal Crown corporation executives (x) provincial Crown corporation executives (xi) members of federal commissions, boards and councils (xii) any other categories?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Statistics Canada reports: On the basis of Statistics Canada's 197980 Public Accounts of Canada submission for hospitality payments, volume II, Page 32.41:
(a)	There were no individual contracts for hospitality services of a value more than $2,000.
(b)	The department uses the following guidelines to administer hospitality services: (i) Hospitality chapter 360, Treasury Board Canada, Administrative Policy Manual, (ii) departmental policy on hospitality No. 1980-4, (August 1, 1980). This essentially elaborates on chapter 360 of the Treasury Board Manual.
(c)	The percentage distribution of the $8,298 hospitality expenses paid to the following categories in 1979-80 was:
(i)	Foreign visitors	Per cent 9.36(ii)	Canadian businessmen	6.92(iii)	Provincial public servants	47.80(iv)	Federal public servants	35.92(v)	Ministerial exempt staff	-(vi)	Members of Parliament	-(vii)	Members of Provincial Parliaments,	Legislative Assemblies and the National Assembly	(viii)	Canadian dignitaries, such as the Governor	General and Lieutenant Governors General	-(ix)	Federal Crown corporation executives	-(x)	Provincial Crown corporation executives	(xi)	Members of federal commissions, boards and	(xii)	councils Any other categories	-Total	100.00
May 14, 1982


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Department of National Health and Welfare under the health and social services program at page 32.23, volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to photography services (a) how does the department explain the 90 per cent increase in expenditure for the item over that for 1978-79 (b) what was the name of each type of service (c) what was the amount paid for each service and, for contracts over $2,000, to whom was it paid?


Royce Herbert Frith: (a) The department carried out an extensive reorganization during the fiscal year 1979-80, at which time the non-Medical Use of Drugs Directorate, previously with the Health Protection Branch, was incorporated into the Health Services and Promotion Branch. It is therefore necessary to include the additional expenditures for the Non-Medical Use of Drugs Directorate for photographic services with those of the Health Care Program. The combined expenditures would then amount to:
Health Care Program	$2,276
Non-Medical Use of Drugs	5,489
Combined total 1978/79	$7,765
The increase in photographic services for the branch would then be as follows:
Fiscal Year 1978/79	$ 7,765
Fiscal Year 1979/80	10,813
Increase	$ 3,048
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Department of Finance at page 32.11, volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to training and educational services (a) how does the department account for the 3,641 per cent increase in expenditure for the item over that for 1978-79 (b) what services does this entail (c) what is a list of each contract of a value more than $2,000?


Pierre Bussières: In so
far as the Department of Finance Canada is concerned:
(a)	The training and educational services cost referred to in the public accounts of 1978-79 should have been divided into two parts: Part one-Finance: As indicated on page 32-20 of the 1978-79 is $65,252. Part two-Anti-dumping Tribunal Program: The amount of $1,817 indicated on page 32-20 of the 1978-79 public accounts represent the expenditures of the Anti-dumping Tribunal.
The printer omitted the title of this program. Therefore, the 3,641 per cent increase is not valid if you compare the finance expenditures of 1978-79 of $65,252 to 1979-80 of $67,979 which is an increase of $2,727 or 4.18 per cent.
(b)	The expenditures listed under "Training and Educational Services" include any courses taken under the different training programs offered by the Public Service Commission, any courses which are job related taken at universities or other institutions by employees in the department.
(c)	Public Service Commission $2,500. All other individual contracts for training were less than $2,000.
This is a percentage increase of only 39 p. cent. The increase can be explained by the higher cost of photographic services, materials and supplies and increased emphasis by the branch on the provision of promotional health-related films to the general public (See our reply to enquiry 2,979 answered this day).
(b) The primary service received was the provision of film duplication of health promotion films by the National Film Board to expand the departmental inventory of health related films. Other services were slide reproductions related to the design of health facilities, film processing, passport photographs, and photographic work related to health promotion posters and leaflets.
(c)	The National Film Board received $7,552 for film duplication. The departmental Audio-Visual Services Section provided slide duplication and miscellaneous photographic services in the amount of $1,262. The balance of $1,999 consisted of miscellaneous photographic services provided by local firms in the production of health promotion posters and leaflets.
EM&R-COMPUTER SERVICES


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources under the earth sciences program at page 32.8, volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to computer services (a) how does the department explain the 383 per cent increase in expenditure for the item over that for 1978-79 (b) what is a list of each contract of a value more than $2,000 (c) what was the name of each type of service (d) what was the amount paid for each service and, for contracts over $2,000, to whom was it paid?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows: (a) Expenditures for computer services in the earth sciences program were $1,920,000 for 1978-79 and $1,992,143 for 1979-80. Therefore, there was an increase of only 4 per cent.
(b) to (d)
Contractor
Service
Contract Value
ADGA Limited	Programming	$ 14,522Programming	$	16,330Systems Analysis	$	11,637Systems Analysis	$	17,194Operational and	$102,149
maintenance support
17438

May 14, 1982
Order Paper Questions			
Contractor	Service	Contract Value	Bailey & Rose Ltd.	Computer programming	$	12,904Charles Higgerty Ltd.	Brokerage fees for various contracts	$	5,209Computel Systems Ltd.	Computer programming	$	2,500Datacap Ltd.	Computer input	$	7,200Deloitte Haskins & Sells Associates	Software services	$	4,000Digital Equipment of Canada	Repair and servicing	$	2,958Digital Methods Ltd.	Computer programming	$	60,928Data input	$	21,900Edfor Information Consultants Ltd.	Software services	$	34,017Fisheries and Oceans	Rental of computer time	$	16,820Genesys Group	Programming	$	3,311Programming	$	3,311Programming	$	3,416Programming	$	3,548Programming	$	5,400Programming	$	12,641Programming	$	15,860Programming	$	17,500Programming	$	24,121Intellitech Canada Ltd.	Programming	$	4,425E.J. MacLaren Consultants Ltd.	Documentation	$	9,619Nordco	Complete video display system	$	21,775Prior Data Sciences Ltd.	Programming	$	13,775Prologic Systems Ltd.	Programming	$	14,715Programming	$	25,980Quasar Systems Ltd.	Systems analysis and design	$	2,000Systems analysis and design	$	3,275Systems analysis and design	$	18,328Qupro Data	Software services	$	3,500S&S Software	Special programming	$	10,800Systemhouse Ltd.	Consulting	$	10,000Consulting (software evaluation)	$	24,970Special programming	$	7,995


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Department of Finance for the Auditor General at page 32.11, volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to photography services (a) what services does this entail (b) what is a list of each contract of a value more than $2,000?


Pierre Bussières: Photography Services, $29,496. (a) This entailed production work for an orientation film (English and French) on the
introduction of comprehensive auditing, (b) Contracts over $2,000-The Communications Centre, Toronto, Ont. $28,100.


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Department of Finance for the Auditor General at page 32.11, volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to tuition fees (a) what services does this entail (b) what is a list of each contract of a value more than $2,000?


Pierre Bussières: Tuition Fees-$15,049. (a) Reimbursement of tuition fees to employees, based on successful completion of courses. All courses approved are related to the work of the Office, (b) There were no contracts of a value of more than $2,000.


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development at page 32.15, volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to motion picture production and distribution (a) what was the title and total cost of each film produced in the fiscal year 1979-80 (b) at what audience was each film aimed (c) what cost recovery is anticipated from the distribution of all the films?


John Carr Munro: (a)	Native Opportunities:
Native People in the Performing Arts	$ 12,069.77
The Child and the Moon
(DIAND share of total $78,000)	13,500.00
Total: $ 25,569.77
(b)	Native Opportunities:
Native People in the Performing Arts	-Indian people.
Indian school children, education and general audience.
The Child and the Moon	-general audience
(c)	There is no actual or anticipated cost recovery for these films by this department. Public Accounts lists an amount of $177,807. The balance of $152,235 is for the distribution and purchase of copies of motion pictures produced previously.


DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-FILM AND SLIDE PRODUCTION SERVICES
Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Department of External Affairs for the Canadian International Development Agency at page 32.10, volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to film and slide production services (a) what was the title and total cost of each film produced in the fiscal year 1979-80 (b) at what audience was each film aimed (c) what cost recovery is anticipated from the distribution of all the films (d) how does the agency account for the 64 per cent increase in expenditure for the item over than for 1978-79 (e) what services does this entail?


Mark R. MacGuigan: (a) and (b) "Last Day in the Life of Richard Johnson in Puno Peru", (a Charlotte Gobeil production), $52,172 for
May 14, 1982

general television audiences. "Beyond the Rift Wall", (a Charlotte Gobeil production), $14,000 for general television audiences. "One World" (TV Ontario production), $15,000 for secondary schools and universities.
(c)	Nil.
(d)	The 64 per cent in expenditure over 1978-79 was the result of the purchase of copies of films on international development for distribution to Canadian viewers.
(e)	See the answer to (d) above.


LAURENTIAN PILOTAGE AUTHORITY
Mr. Clarke: With reference to the statement of operations of the Laurentian Pilotage Authority for the year ended December 31, 1979 at page 125, volume III of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, which notes that ''the objects of the authority are to establish, operate and maintain an efficient pilot service ..." and that the service operated at a net loss of $391,142 (a) how does the authority justify this loss with reference to the objective of operating an "efficient pilot service" and considering that it had a surplus of operating income over operating expenses for the previous year of $447,597 (b) has the authority taken measures to ensure it returns to a net operating income position and, if so (i) what measures (ii) how soon does the authority anticipate this position will be regained (iii) what steps is the authority taking to prevent a recurrence of this sort?


Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The Laurentian Pilotage Authority advises as follows:
(a)	The tariffs in force for the years 1979, 1980 and 1981 were calculated and published to cover our expenses, without profit or loss. For purposes of publication of tariffs, we must use a marine traffic forecast and an estimate of expenses. Any discrepancy between our forecasts and reality necessarily results in a profit or a loss.
(b)	(i) In order to prevent repetition of a deficit, the authority was obliged to publish a second tariff in 1981. This tariff entered into force on September 1, 1981;
(ii)	The authority forecasts that 1982 revenues will be sufficient to cover operational and capital expenses;
(iii)	In each of the following years, a tariff will be published to ensure financial self-sufficiency.


NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD
Mr. Clarke: 1.	With reference to the statement of operations and schedule of revenue and operating income (Loss) of the National Harbours Board for the year ended December 31, 1979 at page 136, volume III of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, which notes that the board operated at a net loss of $2,375,000, how does the board explain this loss?
2.	Did seven of the 15 harbours listed in the schedule of revenue and operating income (loss) operate at a loss and, if so, what measures did the board take to improve the efficiency of the harbours so that such losses would not recur and on what date does the board anticipate these measures will have the desired result?
3.	Did the ports of Churchill and Prince Rupert show an increase in operating loss and, if so (a) was this contrary to the trend in the five other losing ports (b) what special conditions at these ports caused the increases and were the difficulties overcome (c) what steps has the Board taken to forestall a recurrence of these losses?
Order Paper Questions


Jesse Philip Flis: The National Harbours Board advises as follows:
1.	The National Harbours Board improved its financial performance from a net loss of $16,625,000 in 1978 to a net loss of $2,375,000 in 1979. The loss in 1979 is principally due to a strike at the port of Montreal that lasted five months and shut down the grain elevators which are major revenue generators of the corporation.
2.	As reflected in the schedule of revenue and operating income (loss), seven of the 15 ports did have an operating loss for 1979. However, in total, the National Harbours Board has a positive operating income for the first time since 1971. This reflects the results of the application of the principle of full cost recovery through tariff increases, the reduction of manpower (9 per cent in 1979), the discontinuation of non-profitable activities and the modernization of facilities (cost: $50,144,000). The benefits derived from these measures are realized to a greater extent in 1980 where the National Harbours Board had a positive operating income of $18,821,000 and a net income of $17,360,000.
3.	The ports of Churchill and Prince Rupert did show an increase in operating loss from 1978 to 1979.
(a)	This was contrary to the improvement trend established by the five other losing ports.
(b)	and (c) At the port of Churchill, the results are attributable to the lack of grain traffic. The grain volume allocated to the port is beyond the control of the National Harbours Board. Another factor was the upgrading of the port's facilities at a cost of $3,660,000 which consequently increased its depreciation and taxes by $233,000. In 1980, the operating loss is solely due to the lack of grain traffic.
At the port of Prince Rupert, the upgrading of facilities, at a cost of $1,780,000, caused depreciation expense and grants in lieu of taxes to be $183,000 higher, in total, than the previous year. However, it was an economically viable project and will earn a positive return that will more than offset the excess expenditures. The results are already showing, as evidenced by the fact that, in 1980, Prince Rupert earned $37,000 in operating income because of the project.


MRS. SHIRLEY THORPE
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did Mrs. Shirley Thorpe hold a contract for cleaning services at the federal building in Prescott, Ontario in the constituency of Leeds-Grenville?
2.	Did the contract expire on November 30, 1981 and was Mrs. Thorpe told just before finishing work on that date that it would not be renewed and, if so (a) on what date and by whom was the decision made not to renew the contract (b) what are all the reasons she was not given the courtesy of advance notice (c) who instructed that no advance notice be given and who should have given her that notice?
3.	Is it the intention of the government to go back to the former system of using public works employees for maintenance in the building rather than using a contract?
4.	Will Mrs. Thorpe be considered for such employment by the Department of Public Works and, if not, for what reason?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: 1. Yes.

May 14, 1982
Order Paper Questions
2.	Mrs. Thorpe's contract was awarded by letter for the 12-month period December 1, 1980 to November 30, 1981. Mrs. Thorpe was advised verbally in late October that a new contract would not be put out to tender call.
(a)	District management made the decision on or about August 27, 1981.
(b)	The letter of contract award dated December 8, 1980 to Mrs. Thorpe indicated clearly the contract term and she was also verbally advised during the month of October 1981.
(c)	No instructions were issued that advance notice not be given. As indicated above advance notice was given to Mrs. Thorpe.
3.	Yes, for the portion of the work under question.
4.	All applicants were considered. A competition was held in accordance with Public Service Commission regulations. The position was offered to the successful candidate who has accepted the position. The additional background information regarding this competition is of a personal nature.


EQUALIZATION PAYMENTS
Mr. Herbert: 1.	Were equalization payments made to the province of Quebec based on the census count of June, 1976?
2.	By province, what was the percentage of the number of persons missed relative to the number counted, as a result of the special survey following the 1976 census to estimate the number of persons missed?
3.	Were equalization payments made to Quebec adjusted as a result of the special survey and (a) if so, by what amount (b) if not, what is the estimated amount that any adjustment would have been?
4.	What are the principal reasons why persons are missed in the census count in Quebec?


David P. Smith: I am informed by the Department of Finance and Statistics Canada as follows:
1.	Yes, for the 1976-77 fiscal year.
2.	The proportion of persons missed by the 1976 census, as estimated by a special survey conducted following the census, is shown below by province expressed as per cent of the total
population:	Per cent
Newfoundland	1.10
Prince Edward Island	0.38
Nova Scotia	0.86
New Brunswick	2.16
Quebec	2.95
Ontario	1.52
Manitoba	1.07
Saskatchewan	1.33
Alberta	1.49
British Columbia	3.13
Average for all provinces (10)	2.04
The estimates above are subject to sampling and measurement errors. The sampling errors can and have been estimated.
3.	Section 3 of the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Established Programs Financing Regulations defines the population of a province to be used for equalization and EPF purposes in each fiscal year as "the official estimate of the population of that province on the first day of June of that fiscal year as most recently estimated by Statistics Canada", for years other than census years, and as census population data for census years. The official estimates and the census population data are not adjusted for the result of the special survey. If the adjustment had been made, Quebec would have received an additional $62.8 million in 1976-77.
4.	Persons are missed by the census either because, in spite of best efforts, the household in which they live is missed by census takers, or because the residents completing the census form fail to include everyone living in the household. There are no special reasons for missing persons applicable uniquely to Quebec. Indeed, in the 1976 census the difference in the rate for Quebec and all other provinces was not statistically significant. Comparable rates from the 1981 census are not as yet available.


SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BOND LOANS
Mr. Mazankowski: For (a) 1980 (b) 1981, by province (i) how many loans were granted to farmers and small businesses under the provisions of the Small Business Development Bond (ii) what was the total amount of the loans (iii) what was the average interest rate charged (iv) how many loans, if any, were defaulted?


Pierre Bussières: (i) & (ii) Distribution of Benefits of the Small Business Development Bond Program by Province
Province	Small Business Development Bond
	Number	Amounts ($ millions)
Newfoundland	215	24.8Prince Edward Island	77	10.1Nova Scotia	358	45.8New Brunswick	406	44.8Quebec	1716	239.7Ontario	4724	679.6Manitoba	771	124.5Saskatchewan	1224	189.3Alberta	1788	311.8British Columbia	2467	406.0OTHER	58	10.6All Canada	13804	2087.0
These estimates provide information on the number of small businesses and farms and the amounts of loans issued to these entities under SBDB program for the period ending April 14, 1982. The SBDB programs started in December, 1979 and ended in January, 1982. It is not possible to provide this information on an annual basis. No adjustments are made for bonds that are issued but where elections had not been filed with Revenue Canada as of April 14, 1982.
May 14, 1982

(iii)	In general, the average rate of interest charged on these bonds is half the prime rate plus one to three percentage points.
(iv)	No information is currently available on loans, if any, that were defaulted.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough) moved:: That this House deplores the continuation of the policy of the government of enforcing compulsory metrication in Canada which is causing substantial hardship to all sectors of the Canadian economy and contributing to the ever-increasing rate of bankruptcies and strongly recommends that the government immediately implement a moratorium on all metric related prosecutions, now or to be commenced, and that the necessary action be taken to forthwith abandon compulsory metrication in Canada.
He said: Madam Speaker, today I will deal with the subject of enforced implementation of metric from four positions. First, it has come to my attention that the Metric Commission is so desperate to regain its credibility and justify its very existence that it has now resorted and fallen to the temptation of escalating untruths and distortions.
I am also saddened to report that it would appear that certain ministers in the House today are of the same opinion and that, in order to keep this on track, they now find it necessary to circulate what I consider to be untruths and distortions, because the ministers who are in the House today are not saying the same thing as the minister has said over the past nine years. I will clearly document some of the statements of some of the former Liberal cabinet ministers and their position on metric.
The third concern I would like to point out, as mentioned in our motion, is that it would appear, at least to the Conservative party, that this imposition of enforced metric is creating unnecessary hardships on the business community, not to mention all of the other burdens which it has to bear at this time because of economic conditions. I will document some of those hardships.
Finally, in the summation of my remarks today, I will deal with the fallacy of the government trying to convince the Canadian people and this House of Commons that, in order to
Supply
do business in the world, it is mandatory that Canada go metric. That simply is not the case, and I will deal with that in more detail later.
First, let us deal with some of the history of metric and some of the fallacies as stated by the present Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) in complete contradiction to the original understanding of metric. I must point out in my preamble that as opposition spokesman on the subject of weights and measures, I am not opposed to metric. I used the metric system for 25 years in business. I was a fuel oil distributor and a General Motors car dealer. I know why General Motors went metric, and I know why the fuel oil business went metric as well, I will cover that in detail later.
In commencing my remarks, I would like to refer to the statement of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs on "Canada AM" just a few weeks ago. The minister said: "In general, the public has support for metric, industry supports metric and the consumers support metric." That statement was made by the same minister who, today in this House of Commons, had the nerve to say that Conservatives are trying to "brew the pot", to use his exact words.
Earlier this past month the minister also stated that this movement is motivated by a tiny group of fanatics. When we presented a petition to the House on April 6 just passed, comprising 135,327 signatures, he also had the nerve to say that that petition was the result of misleading and false representations and information. That was simply not true. If the minister were honourable, he would consider the withdrawal of that statement. Instead, as Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, he made a commitment to the Canadian people, wisely or not, to respond personally and individually to each of those 135,327 signatures. I remind the minister that prior to that petition being presented, 52,000 signatures were presented to this House by myself in the same year on behalf of constituents from right across Canada. Concerning petitions presented by other Members of Parliament, as recently as this past week another 14,000 signatures came in from one area. Compounded, over 300,000 petitions have been presented to the House of Commons in less than two years.


Stan Darling: And more to come.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: These petitions have not been against metric but, rather, against forced metric. That has clearly not been the history of how we arrived at the point today where we have the implementation of the Metric Systems International. It was never intended to be forced. I will deliver some statements by three former ministers of industry, trade and commerce of the Liberal government, two ministers of small business and one minister of consumer and corporate affairs, to back up the statement that it was not to be mandatory.
I would like to refer to the minister's statement on this same TV show, "Canada AM". He said that there was a white paper, an agreement in this House in 1970, that metric should

May 14, 1982
Supply
take place. He was right, but he totally misled the people of Canada, because that agreement in 1970 was the original white paper on metric. I have it here in my hand. It was presented to this House of Commons by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin), the then minister of industry, trade and commerce. I refer the minister to page one of that white paper where it says:
No legislative action is contemplated which would make mandatory a general use of metric in place of inch-pound units.
The minister is misleading the Canadian public when he says that all political parties in Parliament approved the implementation in 1970 and 1971 when it approved this white paper. I will cover in more detail what the Metric Commission is saying. The minister should be fully aware of the fact that on page 10 of the same white paper, the one we all agreed to, section 4.1.7 states:
Because of the close ties between the United States and Canada in science, technology, industry and commerce, each country has a special interest in the course likely to be followed by the other in respect of metric conversion ... The question is a complex one because the United States, which is Canada's main export market, has not made the decision to convert.
Let us go on to the voluntary aspect with the agreement of the sectors involved. We are dealing now with one sector that did not agree in the beginning to move. We are dealing with weights and measures in the food industry. That is fish, meat, fruit, vegetables and other weighted-out retail products.
What did the retail sector say? I have here a copy of a letter sent to the Right Hon. Joe Clark by a major corporate manager, Patrick Carson, the corporate planning development manager for Loblaws. What did they think about it? They sat on the Metric Commission for many years. I quote from that letter to document clearly the position of that metric sector:
This letter, as you can see, is self-explanatory and for detailed information represents the wishes of approximately 85 per cent of those Canadian retailers responsible for food consumed at home.
To appreciate the efforts required to achieve this consensus statement being forwarded to Mr. Lapointe, one requires to have been exposed to the steamrolling tactics of the Metric Commission hierarchy, for a period of not less than three years.
Having objected on behalf of my particular company, for this period, to the strategy and methods imposed by the MCC it is indeed satisfying to know that the power of a government's bureaucracy is not always allowed to prevail over the wishes of its citizens-
Thank you for allowing time for this important issue to be raised on our behalf, and I am certain on behalf of many Canadians.
The letter was signed by Patrick Carson, corporate and planning development of Loblaws.
What was that consensus taken in 1981, four months before the order in council was passed by this negligent Liberal government which does not really care what the people want? Here is the consensus of the sector dealing with the implementation of metric. I quote:
The working group on scales in the retail food industry met in Vancouver on Tuesday, 28 April, 1981 and achieved the following consensus:
1. The retail food industry members of the working group wish to recommend strongly to the government that the scheduling of retail food scale
conversion to metric units in Canada, which appeared in the Canada Gazette Part 1 of 28 February, 1981, be delayed so that conversion will take place at a time closer to when retail food scales will be converted in the United States.
That is the consensus. They go on to say:
2. If the government decides to continue with the implementation of these regulations in January 1982 in spite of the above recommendations, then the retailers will continue to manage the process-
What else would they do? Corporate citizens do not intend to go to jail because they do not like the order in council. However, for this government to state over national television and at press conferences that metric is being implemented because the people want it and the sector agrees is totally untrue. There should be an apology in this House of Commons for the falsehoods and misapprehensions of this government.
I would also like to read what was said by former Liberal cabinet ministers. On March 17, 1975, Herb Gray was then minister of industry, trade and commerce. He would have people believe that ministers, government and all parties agree with metrication regardless of what the United States did. I quote Herb Gray from page 4180 of Hansard'.
-change would likely be closely related to progress in the United States toward conversion ... it may prove wise to allow the timing and process of conversion to be closely related to the development of United States practice.
That was the Liberal policy in 1975 before the government passed the order in council. The hon. member was the minister; he should have been responsible. That is what he told this House of Commons. I would now like to read a more recent answer from Hansard for April 23, 1980, given by the Minister of State for Small Businesses (Mr. Lapointe). I asked the minister this:
In light of the adverse reaction and effects to small businesses and consumers, will the minister responsible for industry, trade and commerce assure this House-and answer the question-that he will allow full parliamentary discussion on the subject of the implementation of the metric system before it is forced on business communities across Canada?
The minister replied:
If members opposite will please quiet down, Madam Speaker, I should like to tell the hon. member that the suggestion he just made will be examined.
In my supplementary question I asked:
-why must we force metrication on the people of Canada-
The minister responded:
-the government has no intention of imposing the metric system manu militari and that it has always been the policy of the Liberal party and government of taking care of the people First, not regulations.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. I am quite certain the hon. member is doing this inadvertently, but he is referring to ministers by name. I would ask that he refer to them by their ministry or constituency.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer to a statement made by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. On January 14, 1981 I asked the minister:
-is it the intention of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to lock up stores, put bans around cash registers and prohibit stores from doing business-
The minister replied:
-we shall not resort to the methods the hon. member would have us use.
May 14, 1982

Those were his words, totally contrary to what he is saying today.
Let us look at a couple of other former Liberal cabinet ministers. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is infamous for referring to all-party agreement on enforced metric. The debate is not on metric but enforced metric. We are not debating the pros and cons of metric over Imperial measurement. I want to quote what was said on March 17, 1975 while introducing a motion to approve the program of guideline dates for metric conversion. The then minister of industry, trade and commerce, Alistair Gillespie, stated as reported at page 4158 of Hansard:
Every effort will be made to co-ordinate work between the two countries so as to obtain the greatest benefits for the Canadian program.
At page 4160 he stated:
Concern has also been expressed that the cost of conversion might impose an undue hardship on some small businesses.
Len Marchand, then responsible for small business, said at page 2230 of Hansard for December 21, 1976:
-the implementation dates are not mandatory, they serve as guidelines for each ... company or organization in a given sector ... The bill before us today is the first of four such bills-
We have never seen any bills in this House of Commons. We were guaranteed at that time by the minister that that was the first of four such bills before the virtual completion of the final or implementation phase of metric conversion. There are 90 acts affected and not one of those bills has ever been received in this House to this date.
The matter foremost in people's minds is, how did we get from the understanding of a voluntary approach to metric to a forced approach to metric? The Los Angeles Times figured it out. It sent someone to Canada a month ago to interview people to find out how we moved away from our understanding with the United States. Mr. Paul Robinson, ambassador of the United States to Canada, has said it would cost Canadian jobs because we cannot operate in a form of measurement foreign to the United States. I think that Mr. Robinson, the American Ambassador to Canada, is speaking the same lines Liberal cabinet ministers have spoken in this House from 1970 until today.
I have a quotation from the acting executive director of the Metric Commission, Mr. Pat Gampathy. First of all, I have this report in the Los Angeles Times for February 11, 1982:
-Canada needed to keep pace with conversion in the United States, its dominant trading partner.
Asked what his comment was, the acting executive director of the Metric Commission said:
What we do in the retail stores within Canada has no bearing on selling to the United States.
That shows me what little this acting executive director of the Metric Commission knows about retailing in border cities that rely on tourist business from the United States. He says it has no bearing, it does not matter, that we can deal in anything we want to in Niagara Falls, Ontario, regardless of what
Supply
the measurement system is in our principal tourist business with the United States. That is simply not the case. That is a lot of hogwash. There is no truth in it whatsoever.
I now refer to an article in the New York Times of March 14, 1982:
The United States ambassador, Paul H. Robinson, Jr., told Canadian reporters that metric conversion was "rubbish" and opposed by most Americans. He warned that it might create trade problems between the United States and Canada.
The Canadian Government was not pleased with Mr. Robinson's remarks since one of its basic arguments in favor of the metric system was Canada's need as a trading nation to adapt its weights and measures to the predominant system in the world.
We will find out how predominant the system is in the world in just a moment. I want now to deal with what I have currently been considering putting before the RCMP for investigation.
The minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, with all due respect, Mr. Speaker, has a conflict of interest in his position as Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs responsible for the protection of the consumers of Canada against false advertising. I have risen in this House on three occasions now, going right up to three different ministers, trying to get an answer as to how come these people can do two things in the Metric Commission. They can control the media through a $1.8 million advertising tool, while at the same time spreading false rumours about how things are in Canada.
If the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has no intention of investigating articles like this full page article in The Globe and Mail, full of falsehoods and untruths, I think the RCMP should start investigating some of these statements. Statement one: "Except for retailers' scales, there is no compulsion in Canada". That is totally wrong. There are three sectors, and the minister knows it. I suggest that he bring that to the attention of the Metric Commission. Statement two: "The provinces have been a full partner in the conversion". That is not true.
What is happening in regard to the conversion program? Let us take a look at the situation with the Alberta government. I am reading from a CP story of May 13, 1982:
The Alberta government may intervene in a court case against a Calgary woman charged with advertising carpets for sale by the square yard, Attorney General Neil Crawford told the legislature Tuesday. Crawford told reporters he is not sure of all the facts. He said, however, if the charge was laid simply because the carpet company advertised in both measures, it should not be prosecuted.
Metric is not being forced, with the support of the Alberta government. Let us take a look at Manitoba's government. Let us see what is going on in their legislature, as reported by the Canadian Press on April 30, 1982:
Manitoba should tell the federal government to keep its metric snoopers out of stores in the province, Opposition Leader Sterling Lyon said Friday.
Lyon told the legislature the federal government apparently is taking legal action against carpet stores in other provinces that offer goods for sale in imperial measure as well as the metric system.

May 14, 1982
Supply
He said Attorney General Roland Penner should take the lead and advise the federal government such anti-business action would not be appreciated in Manitoba.
That does not indicate support on the part of the provincial governments. Let us move to Prince Edward Island. This is a CP story from Charlottetown, P.E.I.:
Canada's conversion to metric will be costly for this island's potato producers, says Norman Ramsay, chairman of the P.E.I. Potato Producers Association.
Legislation to enforce metric will cost producers a great deal of money to buy new scales, he said.
Ramsay also said the continued use of the Imperial System in the U.S. will aggravate the local farmers' problems.
The most serious statement of all in this full page article is a statement on the direct cost. Here is a statement by a commissioner-imagine, a commissioner. Cleo Mowers, also an editor of a western paper, obtains almost a full page story. Talk about conflict of interest! We have a metric commissioner writing an article in support of metric as an unbiased person, yet deriving his income from a stipend he receives from the minister responsible for the Metric Commission. He is spreading this kind of propaganda.
Item three: "The direct cost of forced conversion is about SI.50 per Canadian". I have not got my calculator here, but $1.50 a Canadian to me means approximately, if we have about 23 million population, a cost of $38 million or $40 million.
The minister thinks that he as Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs can implement metric in the retail sectors of this country with the Metric Commission spending $50 million to date. There is $3 million for payroll, $2 million for advertising, and I do not know how much for sales promotion since they do not have to tell us what they are doing. All we know is that they have $12 million budget this year, for 12 months. They sit in an ivory tower here in Ottawa, feeding their insatiable appetite for tax dollars, the survival of the fittest, the last Metric Commission on the North American continent as of September, the last area in the free world that forced metric on people.
Even Japan has a voluntary implementation program. There is no law in Russia to prevent someone from selling a handful of beans or a pound of bananas. The point is this, that we are less free in this part of the free world than many people are in parts of the world that use the old European method. I will deal with some of those areas, in conclusion.
What does British Columbia say? Listen to one statement by the minister of education, who feels the same way as a great number of educators in different parts of the country who say that to teach only metric in our school systems is a deficiency. If we can teach French and English and graduate children out of our schools better equipped to enter the world, surely we can teach Imperial measurement in our school system, enabling those schoolchildren to deal and trade with the United States, our major trading partner which is not going to metric but going back to Imperial.
Shell Oil has just announced that in the state of Florida they are converting their pumps at considerable expense back to Imperial. So has Amoco, so has Chevron in California. Yet the
Metric Commission spreads its last piece of propaganda, that the service stations in the United States are going to metric, and that the highway signs in the United States are going to metric, both in the same article. Hogwash! I drove to Chicago and saw only one metric highway sign, by way of introduction, between Windsor and Chicago. Is that changing their highway signs? When you get to Florida you see them converting the pumps back to Imperial. If the minister thinks that is moving to metric, then he is totally out of touch. That admission indicates that he knows about as much about metric as he knows about the small business community when he says it can operate without a post office.
The RCMP investigation stems from the fact that the Metric Commission printed propaganda with the use of government presses. The commission handed that propaganda out in grocery stores and retail outlets across Canada, and that propaganda said that the Metric Commission was set up by the government in June of 1971. The Metric Commission was set up by an order in council. This governmet never passed any piece of legislation which set up the Metric Commission and gave it a mandate to bring in metric by force. As a result of a white paper we set up the Metric Commission with two main principles in mind. One was that we would change at the same time the United States changed. The second was that it would be voluntary and with the blessing of the sectors involved. 1 have proved without doubt that that is not the course that this government is on.
Hon. members on the government side have received notifications of petitions from their constituents. They have not brought those petitions into the House of Commons. They have denied their constituents the opportunity to have petitions protesting forced metric presented in this House. Is that democratic? Is that the parliamentary procedure under which we are supposed to operate? A Member of Parliament does not have to agree with a petition but, out of respect for his constituents, he should present their petitions to the House of Commons.
By going metric we are supposed to be able to do business with foreign countries. The Canadian government has just signed a contract with Japan to fill one of the largest orders even for prefabricated homes. The Japanese are moving back to Imperial and conventional two by fours. I am told the Japanese are doing this because they have to manufacture four by eights and two by fours to ship to the American market. Our Canadian metric homes are of no use to the Japanese people because a four by eight sheet of plywood will not fit a metric home, and neither will squares for roofs or blocks or bricks.
The whole world is not moving to metric. We have large orders, the most recent one to Velan Incorporated. Velan Incorporated has just received a multimillion dollar order in Montreal to supply Imperial valves to a Russian-designed
May 14, 1982

factory overseas which was Hungarian-built with Czechoslovakian participation. The order is totally in Imperial.
I have here a whole list of companies from all over the world which are ordering from Canada in Imperial. Orders in Imperal are placed with the automotive industry, the aviation industry and the aerospace industry. Orders for prefabricated homes stipulate Imperial. Orders for valves stipulate Imperial. The list is endless. And this government would have the people of Canada believe, through false advertising, that the whole world is going to metric.
Time will not permit me to list all the business that are going out of business. I see some smiles on the government side of the House. We should not be driving business out. We do not need another cross to bear. Loss of business is the cost of conversion to metric, for which there has never been proven cost justification given by this or any other government.
When the Conservatives were in office, they threw out the order in council making metric in retail stores the only form of measurement and allowed stores to do what they wanted in their sectors. In Peterborough the stores immediately went back to Imperial and now, while half of Canada is converting to metric, Peterborough is receiving cheques from the present federal government to cover the cost of their conversion back to Imperial. There are grounds for objection. People in the canning industry told this government they would not change their cans from six-ounce, ten-ounce and twelve-ounce sizes but that they would agree to put comparable metric measurements beside the Imperial measurements on the labels. They have the right idea. We do not need added costs. We do not need to exclude Imperial or Canadian measurement from use. There is no wish on the part of the Conservative opposition to bring about anything but the right to choose, when that can be justified on the basis of cost and when the sector involved requests that. The government says the majority wants forced metric. I hope sooner or later this government will come to the conclusion that it is not listening to the majority.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to follow the hon. member and to address this subject. The hon. member has dreamed up a cause and has devoted a lot of time and energy to trying to stop the clock. In today's world I think it is sad to see such a performance.
I believe metric should have nothing whatever to do with party politics, any more than whether motorists should be driving on the right or left side of the road and whether they should be free to choose. Metric is simply a matter of public convenience and economic necessity. Its merit has been recognized in Canadian law since 1871. In fact, it was the Tories who took the first step toward moving to metric.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Not forced.


André Ouellet: The first Prime Minister of Canada, Sir John A. Macdonald, was the first to bring in a legislative measure
Supply
dealing with metrication. He would be turning in his grave if he could listen to the hon. member speaking today.
I understand that the vast majority of the members of the hon. member's party are away today doing more important things. There are only a few left to discuss this lost cause.
In the modern world today I think one has to be dumb to oppose metrication. Metric has been requested by scientific Canadians, industrial Canadians, businessmen and consumer organizations in the country. Canada's scientific, industrial and trading communities appreciate the advantages of metric, and more and more pressure for its increased use has developed. I think former Prime Minister Diefenbaker reacted favourably to the movement to metric when he was Prime Minister, but he did not move to metric conclusively; therefore, more pressure was brought to bear. In late 1968 and soon after a number of prominent organizations in Canada asked the government to give some leadership. I could give a list of all the associations which at the time requested the Canadian government to go metric.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Not by force.


André Ouellet: The Canadian Pharmaceutical Association-


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Not by force.


André Ouellet: -the Canadian Council of Professional Engineers-


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Not by force.


André Ouellet: -the Chemical Institute of Canada-


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Not by force.


André Ouellet: -the Engineering Institute of Canada.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Not by force.


André Ouellet: The hon. gentleman is pretty nervous. I appreciate that he would be nervous today, but I invite him to relax. He had his time in front of the camera. He is now all shook up. I think he should relax, calm down-


Jean-Luc Pepin: And enjoy himself.


André Ouellet: -and listen. The hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) has received all the documentation and information necessary for a person to understand. After listening to him today and after seeing him twist the facts, I can only conclude that he does not want to read the facts correctly, that he does not want to see the facts correctly or else he is unable to do so.
I was talking about other associations which asked the Canadian government to go metric, such as the Consumers' Association of Canada, the Canadian Home and School and Parent-Teacher Federation Inc., the Agricultural Institute of Canada, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Teachers' Federation and the Canadian Construction Association, just to name a few.

May 14, 1982
Supply
These associations put pressure on the government and asked it to go metric. In late 1968 or early 1969, in response to this perceived public demand, the government commissioned a committee of senior officials to investigate the demand, need, advantage and practicability of conversion to metric. Two years later this body issued a report recommending conversion, which at the time was considered both inevitable and desirable. That report was adopted by the government and became the white paper of 1970.
The Canadian government did not convert Canada to metric; the Liberal party did not convert Canada to metric; it happened by public demand. It was done and continues to be done by the people and by business, at their request and for their benefit. The white paper was submitted to the people's elected representatives who, through their House leaders in Parliament, said clearly and unequivocally: "We agree; let's get on with it."
This also required the partipation of the provincial governments and all ten Premiers agreed that the federal plan suited their own plans to convert to metric. Signs on the highways in Canada have not been put there by the federal government; they have been put there by the provincial authorities.
If the hon. member for Peterborough does not like it, he should not go around trying to make the people of Canada believe that metric has been forced on them and that it is a plan made by the Canadian government and the Liberal party. As I understand it, there are not many Liberal provincial governments in Canada but there are metric signs in every province.
In the education system today our children are taught in metric. Does the federal government, the Liberal Party of Canada or the provincial authorities run the education system in Canada? I want to tell the hon. member for Peterborough that again he is not telling the truth when he tells the people of Canada that metric has been imposed on them by the Liberal Party of Canada and by the Canadian government. Children are taught metric in school and this is through the will, desire and understanding of the provincial governments despite what the hon. member for Peterborough says.
I want to say one other thing about the voluntary aspect of metrication, Mr. Speaker. To implement such a system in Canada requires public participation. This was obtained through some thousands of volunteers representing every sector of the Canadian economy who over the last ten years organized the details of the conversion in their own sectors.
From the outset it was planned that the conversion would be as voluntary as possible, with a minimum of compulsion, but it was acknowledged that converting to metric measurement would probably require compulsion at some point. The white paper that the hon. member who spoke before me referred to and which has been unanimously endorsed in this House anticipated the compulsory conversion of retail scales.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Read it!


André Ouellet: The hon. member is asking me to read it. If he has not read it after having launched this type of campaign for the last year and a half, that shows quite clearly that he is not serious with his campaign.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: I read it. You read it.


André Ouellet: The House debated and passed two metric bills, one in 1971 and another one in 1975. It unanimously supported the resolution to approve metric conversion programs.
When the hon. member for Peterborough and the very few who follow him try to say that Parliament never approved metrication and that it was done by order in council, they are not relating what really took place. There was a lengthy debate in Parliament and there was a request by the opposition party for a formal bill. Authority for this was given by the House of Commons in 1976 through amendments to the Weights and Measures Act which specifically authorized the cabinet, by order in council, to make only metric legal in retail trade. This House approved that bill unanimously and the Conservative party voted for it in 1976.
That a few of them do not want to remember this today and regret their vote is quite possible, but the vast majority who are still around know that this is the case. The hon. member for Peterborough was not here at that time and he can say what he wants, but when he tries to convey to the public of Canada that metrication has not been amply discussed in Parliament and has not received the sanction of legislation, he is not correct. He is dead wrong.
The experience of other countries which have recently completed conversion, such as Australia and New Zealand, is that at the retail trade level there must be compulsion. The Canadian retail food industry told the government that if its scales were to be converted this should be compulsory for all merchants; so the government, having been authorized and instructed by Parliament to do so and having been requested by the industry to do so, has complied.
To pretend today that there is compulsory metrication in Canada because of the Government of Canada is not to tell the truth. The reality is that there are only three sectors where compulsory decisions have been made. In those three cases it has been done at the request of the industry-


William Henry (Bill) Domm: That is not true.


André Ouellet: -and for very good reasons.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: That is definitely wrong.


André Ouellet: The hon. member does not like to hear the facts. He is showing by his constant opposition to what I am saying that he does not want to know the truth.


Thomas Gordon Towers: 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hon. member will have a chance to enter the debate and make his point.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) was in the House in 1976. I challenge him to say that the bill that was passed in 1976 was not passed.


Thomas Gordon Towers: You say there was a vote; I say there was not.


André Ouellet: The hon. member is talking about a vote, and I am telling him that this bill was passed unanimously in Parliament.


Thomas Gordon Towers: You said there was a vote, and there-


Some hon. Members:: There was a vote.


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


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, in order to pass legislation you have to vote upon it.


Thomas Gordon Towers: There was no vote.


André Ouellet: There is a recorded vote at the request of those who oppose the passing of legislation. Five members stand up in the House and request a recorded vote which allows them to register their opposition. This bill was passed in 1976 unanimously and approved on their reading by all members of Parliament who were present. The hon. member, who was a member of Parliament in 1976, did not stand up and ask for a recorded vote to register his opposition. He was either not present or he did not want to oppose metrication at the time. He might have changed his mind since, but that is an entirely different situation.


Thomas Gordon Towers: There was no vote.


Some hon. Members:: There was a vote!


André Ouellet: I want to say that 102 sector committees have been quietly working on the voluntary conversion of the rest of the Canadian economy. Many have completed their work and most are nearly finished now. It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that until three years ago this was truly a non-partisan, nonpolitical affair for the people, and it was surely done by the people of Canada in a very non-partisan, very practical and very intelligent way. It was perceived to have broad public support and to be in response to public demand in the best interests of the Canadian economy.
It was inevitable, and to a certain degree natural, that there would be a certain measure of public resistance. In the general election of 1979 the Progressive Conservative candidate in Peterborough, seeing some pockets of resistance there, inflamed the debate, encouraged reluctance, distorted the record, and put the whole responsibility on the Liberal government. In so doing, he was able to win a seat in Parliament for
Supply
the riding of Peterborough. Well, he might have been successful at distorting the facts in his own riding, but now he comes to Ottawa and tries to distort the facts and make a case among his colleagues. Judging by the number I see around him today, he has not been very successful in convincing many of his colleagues to support his fight.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the minister knows we have a conference today which our party members are attending. I wish he would-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


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


André Ouellet: That is what I said, Mr. Speaker. The party has a convention, which is much more important. So they are there and a few dumb MPs like him are here wasting there time and using up the time of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please.
The hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) on a point of order.


Douglas Charles Neil: 1 would ask the minister to withdraw that remark; he called us "dumb". That is an unparliamentary expression and he should withdraw it. If there is any dumbness around here, we know where it is.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, yes, indeed. I am sorry, I want to withdraw. I am talking about the hon. member for Peterborough who thinks it is more appropriate to waste his time here than to go to the national convention of his party.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hon. member for Peterborough on a point of order.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: If he is referring to the hon. member for Peterborough, as he says, then I would ask him to withdraw the word "dumb".


André Ouellet: If it bothers the hon. member, I indeed appreciate his sensitivities; but I think it is unfortunate that an hon. member would think it is more important to attack a program which was implemented in Canada for the good of our country and which will bring much more value to our commercial activities that to go to his own party convention. I regret that he finds his time is spent more usefully in this House today than with the numerous other members of his party now having their convention.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Sad, sad.


An hon. Member:: Nothing better to say.


André Ouellet: The reasons we moved to metric in Canada are numerous and the benefits of metric conversion are well known. However, I would like to put them on record because obviously the hon. member has not seen them. Metric saves classroom time. Training in metric creates Canadian jobs.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: For civil servants.

May 14, 1982
Supply


André Ouellet: Metric means fewer package sizes for consumers. Metric makes shopping easier and it simplifies calculations. Metric eases international communications. These are six fundamental reasons why we moved to metric in Canada.


Thomas Gordon Towers: You are unbelievable.


André Ouellet: The exclusive use of the metric system in our schools simplifies the teaching of mathematics and many of the natural sciences. This has resulted in an estimated saving of 5 per cent to 10 per cent in the time it takes to teach the school curriculum. This time can be and is being used to teach more useful things than the number of feet in a mile or yards in a furlong. Secondly, trading in metric creates Canadian jobs.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Who wrote that?


André Ouellet: Canada needs to produce goods in metric to trade with a predominantly metric world.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: The United States.


André Ouellet: Our standard of living depends on our export trade. Over 31 per cent of every Canadian dollar is earned from exports, versus less than 6 per cent to the United States. Producing cars and parts in metric for the United States by itself is keeping over 100,000 Canadians employed. With our newsprint, wood pulp, petroleum and natural gas industries also converted to metric, close to 50 per cent of our exports, even to the U.S., are now described in metric units.
The idea put forward by the opposition that we should not convert to metric because the Americans are not converting is totally false, Mr. Speaker. The vast majority of American industry doing business with Canada and throughout the world is already totally metric. These American companies who have subsidiaries in Canada have brought metric to Canada through those subsidiaries. Therefore, this argument that we should not go metric because the Americans are supposedly slowing down their conversion is totally wrong.
When we resume at two o'clock 1 will continue on this subject-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no!


André Ouellet: -and read a letter from President Ronald Reagan on this subject.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
André Ouellet: When the House adjourned at one o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I was saying, quite contrary to what was said by the hon. member opposite, that President Reagan in the United States is supporting the effort to go metric. He wrote a letter dated April 6, 1982 to members of the American National Metric Council on the occasion of their eight annual conference. He wrote:
My administration supports the policy of voluntary metrication expressed in the Metric Conversion Act of 1975.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Voluntary?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


André Ouellet: The Conservatives are excited because the letter mentioned voluntary metrication. Voluntary metrication is what we have in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


André Ouellet: The President's letter continues:
As the representative of the private sector in this area, your council fulfils an important role in facilitating such conversion. I look forward to continued cooperation with your organization as we work together to make the United States more competitive in world markets.
If it is good enough for the United States, it is indeed good for Canada. What we are trying to do is to be more competitive in the world markets. This is one of the reasons we are going metric.
I want to return to two aspects which were developed by the opposition. One has to do with the impression that we are imposing metrification, making it compulsory and not voluntary. More than 100 sectors of the industry are operating voluntarily within the framework of the mandate of the white paper on metrication.
There have been only three area where regulation have been passed making metrication compulsory. In these three cases the passive of regulations was done at the insistence and request of the industry. The first one has to do with gasoline sales by the litre. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that it was at the request of the gasoline industry that appropriate regulations were passed to make the sale of gasoline by the litre mandatory.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Blackmail.


André Ouellet: The second area is that of home furnishings. The third one is the retail food scale sector. In these two cases regulations were passed clearly at the request of the industry-


William Henry (Bill) Domm: That's nonsense.


André Ouellet: -and at the request of consumer associations in Canada. Why was that done? It was done for a very simple reason. It was felt that to do otherwise would create confusion and difficulties. As well, it would not have been in the best
May 14, 1982

interests of the consumer. The industry stated that if appropriate regulations were not passed in the area of home furnishings and that of retail food scales, it would be incorrect and unjust for many retailers or clients.
The special committee of the home furnishings industry requested, after unanimous approval by all the various national associations that were involved in this special committee, that regulations be passed to make sure that metric conversion would take place in all areas at the same time. This decision was based on the reasonable assumption that someone buying carpeting would likely be wanting to look at furniture, bedspreads, wallpaper and other similar types of products.
It was also felt that, because of the competitive nature of their own industry, regulations would be required to ensure that all retailers converted at the same time. If this is true for the home furnishing sector, it is equally true for retail food scales. If this did not occur, the consumer would be unable to compare prices easily between stores where one might show the price per square yard while another may show the price per square metre, which is approximately 20 per cent larger.
In the motion which is before us today, the opposition would like us to stop the prosecutions which have come before the courts in relation to the implementation of the regulations dealing with home furnishings. Once again the hon. member for Peterborough is misleading the House when he quotes me as saying that I assured him that there would be no prosecutions against those who are faced today with the implementation of metric retail food scales. In fact, it is very clear that the implementation of the retail food scale conversion program will take place over two years and we are confident that by the end of that two-year period-that is, by the end of next year- everyone would have complied with the regulations and there would be no reason to prosecute.
The hon. member mentioned some prosecutions which he read about in the newspapers. I do not want to comment on those cases but I do want to say to him that to abandon prosecutions at the present time would be unfair to those who were involved for a number of years in the implementation of the regulations concerning home furnishing. If prosecutions have taken place in that regard, it was indeed at the request of the Canadian Carpet Institute and at the request of those who have said that it is not fair to advertise a product at a price which is obviously lower than the price advertised under the metric measure. Therefore, in fairness to all the retailers in the industry, allowing some retailers to advertise a price to consumers under one system that is different from the price using the metric system could give undue advantage to some retailers. It is precisely for this reason that the industry itself has requested that the appropriate regulations come into place.
With respect to those who are peacefully converting their retail food scales in an orderly fashion, according to the plan which was asked for and designed by the industry itself with
Supply
the support of the Consumers' Association of Canada, we will indeed be helping them to facilitate this conversion. We will co-operate with them in order to facilitate this conversion and make sure that it is done in an orderly fashion.
I disagree with the motion that has been presented today which alleges that the enforcement of metrication is causing substantial hardship and contributing to an increasing rate of bankruptcies. I suggest that this is grossly misleading. I know of no case where a retailer who has been asked to change his scales has been forced into bankruptcy because of the cost of the new scales. Some opposition members have gone to see retailers contending that it will cost thousands of dollars to change their scales. This is not true. For a few hundred dollars new scales can be purchased or converted. I repeat that you can have scales converted to metric for just a few hundred dollars. Retailers have two years to accomplish this.
the government is not imposing this program. It is following the views and advice of the industry, and it is only at the request of the industry that regulations were passed. As I indicated earlier in my speech, these regulations were authorized by Parliament, by legislation tabled in Parliament and approved unanimously by Parliament.
In the spirit of co-operation I am prepared to discuss with the people involved in this sector in the coming weeks the possibility of exempting some small retailers from compulsory metrication. It is common knowledge that when we implemented the regulations for sale of gasoline by the litre, we exempted some retailers marketing diesel fuel who did not exceed a particular amount of sales. I believe this could be contemplated in relation to those concerned with retail food scales.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I regret to interrupt the hon. minister but his allotted time has expired.


André Ouellet: I just have a closing statement.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: This can be done with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


André Ouellet: I thank hon. members for allowing me to finish because I do want to make an important point which I think they want to know. In this regard, the government has never acted unilaterally to impose regulations or force compulsory metrication. The only exeptions-the three I have mentioned-out of the 100 sector industries which are going metric in Canada result from regulations which were passed at the specific request of the industry.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: No, that is not right.


André Ouellet: 1 am therefore ready to have discussions with these people to find out if it is feasible to excuse some small retailers from compulsory metrication. If the industry agrees with this and allows us to do it, I will indeed come forward and announce it. I do not think it would be fair or correct for the government to do this unilaterally.

May 14, 1982
Supply
The Consumers Association of Canada and the various retail council associations of Canada have requested compulsory regulations in this regard. Therefore, before doing anything I want to consult with them to discuss the implications.
In closing, I want to say that we in the government, and I believe the vast majority of Canadians, believe the pace, the degree and the nature of change to the metric system should, and must, be determined voluntarily in the various sectors of trade and industry by the individual firms or industries directly concerned, with minimal government interference. I took that last remark directly from a speech which was made by my hon. friend opposite. I share his view in that regard.
We do not want to impose metrication on anyone. We believe that the vast majority of Canadians want it because they believe it is in the best interests of Canada. However, we also understand and appreciate that in order for it to be implemented fairly and in an orderly fashion, some regulations must be passed to protect the majority against the unacceptable competition of a minority. In these cases, particularly in the retail sector, it is important that we protect the large majority of those who want to accept metrication. They are welcoming this opportunity because they know that through metric we have substantially reduced and rationalized the number of package sizes and that we have been able to standardize them using round metric sizes to the best advantage of consumers. Those in the industries who have voluntarily accepted this must be protected against the few exceptions who will not follow the rule and who could try to take undue and unfair advantage in the marketplace. This is why some regulations were passed, and it is why we have some regulations, at the request of the industries, I repeat again.
The motion which is presented to us today unfortunately sides more with the past than with the future. I think it is a regressive resolution. It is not a resolution which is in the best spirit of Canada, a young nation looking to the future, looking for markets abroad, looking for opportunities. I think the motion presented by the hon. member for Peterborough should be massively rejected.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, this issue was presented to all members of Parliament in my first year here, in 1968, in 1969 and again in 1970. The series of events which have occurred since 1969 include the presenting of a white paper on metric conversion in 1970, amendments to the Weights and Measures Act (1971), a motion to approve the program of guidelines for metric conversion in 1975, Bill C-23, Metric Conversion (Statute Law Amendment, 1976) Act, from December 1976 until June of 1977, and a no-confidence motion in June of 1980. That was the series of parliamentary events which occurred. Mixed in with those were numerous hearings in two or three committees of this House.
The motion of the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) carefully avoids stating that the Conservatives were opposed to conversion to a metric system of measurement in
Canada. I am glad that it was carefully avoided. In fact, the hon. gentleman carefully avoided saying that in his speech.
The first studies launched with regard to conversion to metric in Canada took place under the Diefenbaker administration in 1960, 1961 and 1962. Finally, a white paper evolved through the channels of the bureaucracy in this capital and it was presented to Parliament. We held hearings. I will deal with some of the activities of the minister a little later.
The minister mentioned a number of organizations which supported the conversion to metric, but I also want to add to that list some more independent witnesses who testified in relation to Bill C-23 in 1977. We heard the testimony of Mr. Lister, chairman of the Metric Advisory Committee, although what he said might not carry too much weight. We heard from Mr. Gilbey, of the grain services union. We heard from Mr. Dobson Lee, president of Alberta Unifarm, who said, "We have supported the metric system for a good many years." We heard from Mr. A. E. Hall, president of the Manitoba Farm Bureau, Mr. Eyre, director of the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, and Mr. Hart of the Saskatchewan urban municipalities, who said: "We accept a program of conversion to metric." Of course, we also heard from Mr. Maine, who was then vice-president of the National Farmers Union. All of these various organizations appeared before parliamentary committees. I was there to hear them.
The question is not what is being done but, rather, how it is being done. I gather that no one in the official opposition will stand up-certainly the hon. member for Peterborough did not-and outrightly oppose the conversion of Canada's measurement system to the metric system. The Conservatives will not do that. Therefore, the question is not what but, rather, how.


Stan Darling: Emphasize that.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I have problems concerning the kind of eighteenth or seventeenth century propaganda and baloney which has been put out in the country by various and sundry people in the Conservative party, which has been nothing more than a sheer scare campaign. It is the old turn-the-clock-back syndrome, but we cannot turn it back. Every organization has said, "Whether we like metric or not, we cannot stop it and we cannot turn it back." The country elevator systems for grain handling in the prairie provinces have already gone through a few million dollars converting to metric scales. I do not imagine anyone in this House who would want to junk it, throw it out and go back to something else. Almost every private enterprise organization has already converted. In fact, 65 per cent of the B.C. forest industry has already converted and there is no way it can turn back.
Let me return to the question not of what we are doing but, rather, how we are doing it. We do not need any neanderthal organization which is in opposition to metric. I challenge any hon. member in this place to interrupt me on a point of order if the hon. member is opposed to bringing about conversion to the metric system in Canada. I challenge any hon. member of
May 14, 1982

this House to get up right now and tell me, on a point of order, that the hon. member is opposed to conversion to metric.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Not one.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I do not hear a word, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Gordon Towers: I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for Red Deer rises on a point of order.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Could the hon. member tell us to which system of metric he is referring? Then we would probably know. Which one of the four or five systems is he talking about?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I could read a couple of quotes of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) if he wants me to embarrass him. The hon. member for Red Deer realizes that the system of metric conversion being used is under the rules and regulations of the Parliament of Canada. That is the system of metric we are referring to.


Douglas Charles Neil: That is nonsense.


Thomas Gordon Towers: You do not know what you are talking about, Les.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I am just as far behind as the hon. member for Red Deer with regard to conversion. I am just as far behind, too, because-


Dave Nickerson: You can say that again.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: -I have not caught up with it yet, and that is probably the problem of the people of Canada. So nobody, but nobody, in this House opposes Canada converting to the metric system of measurement.


Douglas Charles Neil: On a voluntary basis.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Let us get to the question concerning not what the government is doing but, rather, how it is doing it. The hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) mentioned that it should be on a voluntary basis.


Douglas Charles Neil: Right.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Well, Mr. Speaker, that is some kind of Saturday night beer parlour dreaming. General Motors, for example, has already converted to metric, and a farmer in the hon. member's riding who buys a GM car or truck does not have a choice. It is not voluntary for him. He is into metric whether he likes it or not. It is not a case of compulsion or voluntariness; rather, it is a case of attrition and habit. That is not necessarily criminal. Some habits happen to be good.
The minister and the government have been less than reasonable in terms of how the costs of conversion are being shared among the population of Canada. That is the main complaint. A farmer purchases a pail of chemicals. It is measured in litres, but his sprayer is calibrated for Imperial gallons. The chemical industry lobbied the government to have
Supply
this chemical measured only in litres and the government agreed. There is no reason why there cannot be two sets of directions on the label for both litres and gallons. The farmer cannot be expected to throw out his sprayer and buy a new one.
The matter of dual directions is similar to dual languages. The minister has been a bit supine with regard to statements by various and sundry multinational corporations designed to make it cheaper and more convenient for them. I invite the minister to launch an investigation into how multinational corporations which manufacture scales are hitting our retail merchants and garage men on the head with the prices they charge. It is outrageous.
Members on all sides of the House have merchants in their constituencies who have been taken advantage of when converting to the new scales. If the minister wants conversion to metric to be more acceptable and agreeable to the ordinary citizens of this country, whether they be small-business men or farmers, that is where he should move. It is not necesary to fine anyone. Metric conversion is irrevocable; it is here whether we like it or not. I gather we all like, but do not understand all of it.
I again say to the minister it is not what we are doing, but how we are doing it. That is the problem which is causing the neanderthal and eighteenth century reactions in places like Peterborough.
I understand that the 50 per cent write-off for the plumber, electrician, pipefitter or tinsmith when buying a new set of tools expired on March 31, but that the minister has now agreed to extend that. I hope he will nod his head if I am correct. I hear some rattling from over there. Is it correct that he has extended the provision beyond March 31 so that this 50 per cent write-off will still apply?
I further understand the extension will be covered by a new set of regulations. 1 hope whatever member on the government side speaks, the minister will provide him with the material to tell us what these new regulations will be. There has not been a word of objection from any of the three parties with regard to metric conversion. What the government is doing is okay. How it is being done is the problem.
The cost of conversion should be borne by the nation as a whole. There should just not be a 50 per cent benefit for the mechanic who has to buy a new set of tools or the small storekeeper who has to buy a new scale. There should be a 100 per cent write-off immediately. If the government wants a greater degree of acceptance, support and speed in the conversion to metric, those are the kinds of things it must do. This is something the country should do together, all of us.
I object to the mindless baloney put out by various and sundry people, those people mainly to my right and their mindless opposition to any kind of change. Every organization which appeared before this and previous Parliaments back to 1970 said to convert. The nicest quote of all is one from a good

May 14, 1982
Supply
friend, a gentleman I admire. This was said in 1975 when we were debating Bill C-23. The hon. member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling) was the lead-off speaker. He said:
-we supported metric conversion when it was introduced by order in council and the white paper, and that is our position today-we still support it, but we have reservations and hope to place them on the record during this debate.
That is what he and a number of his colleagues then proceeded to do. He went on to say:
Metric conversion in Canada will put us in step with the rest of the world.
He said that his party was "appalled at the lack of progress being made" by the Metric Commission. One of the most respected members ever in this House, the former member for Peace River, Mr. Baldwin, in 1970 completely supported the opening statement by the minister in the white paper on metric conversion. The former member for Malpeque who went on to become Premier of Prince Edward Island had a private members' bill to implement metrication. I do not think the hon. member for Peterborough really believes there should not be a conversion to metric.
The costs of conversion for every plumber, electrician, mechanic, pipefitter, retail merchant, tool and dye maker or whatever, should be recoverable through the tax system by a tax credit, tax exemption, 100 per cent write-off or grant. I do not care how it is done. When someone has to put out $5,000 or $6,000 for a scale for a corner grocery store, the merchant does not necessarily object about the conversion to metric but to the fact that he has to pick up at least half the tab. That is not fair. I therefore urge the minister to be generous in the regulations he brings forward.
I am glad he has extended the period beyond March 31. He should now look at other sectors of the economy to which that extension should apply and provide a 100 per cent recovery of the actual cost. All people have to do is attach their receipts to their income tax form. If the government wants more cooperation and support with regard to metric conversion, that is the only decent thing to do.
It took almost 50 years for Canada to go metric in our monetary system. It took us almost 50 years to go from pounds, shillings and pence to dollars and cents. I hope to goodness it will not take us that long to do the same thing with metric measurements in other parts of our economy. In fact, I find it ironic and amusing that in 1871 Sir John A. Macdonald had legislation passed in this place that made both Imperial and metric legal. The Conservatives were unanimous in their support of it, and the Liberals opposed it. Believe it or not, they opposed it!
Another reason seems to be that neither one has a policy. I am glad the Conservatives are going to Toronto; I hope they come up with a policy for a change. I urge the eight or nine of them who are here, as soon as the House adjourns, to head for
Toronto and come up with a policy on metric-or on anything else.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You guys should not laugh.


Stan Darling: Tell them about their policy.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: This government is the outfit, Mr. Speaker, that says they are not left-wing or right-wing but middle of the road.


Mr. Nystrom:: Bang in the centre.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: And that is where all the accidents happen.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: They try to please everybody and end up pleasing nobody. They have got the whole country mad at them, whether it is on interest rates or metric conversion or whatever. I do not mind a fellow being dumb if he cannot help it; it is when they work at it. That is what bothers me.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. I regret to inform the hon. member that his allotted time has expired. He may continue if there is unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I want to thank the House and appreciate their courtesy. Under the rules, I can go to five o'clock!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I promise my colleagues I will not do that. In fact, my own colleagues are asking me not to do that.


Mr. Cullen:: That would be worse than the bells for two weeks.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: In the course of a change to a fundamental apparatus in the operation of a society and its economy, and in the course of having measurements for the goods we produce and sell, every civilization, every population, adapts and then changes. The whole history of this problem, which goes back thousands of years, has been one of the entire world trying to get one common system-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: -one system which, no matter where you are in this world, no matter what language you speak, no matter what kind of political regime you are under, would mean a common communication between men, among mankind.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Social democracy.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: While there are problems, while there are people who do not want change, they are a minute number of the total population.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Right on!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: There are those problems that automatically come about when you make a significant major change. What
May 14, 1982

else is new? One of the British kings said that a foot is as long as his foot and a yard is as long as his arm. They had a great deal of problems about that kind of change.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The kind of help 1 am getting, Mr. Speaker, from behind me is not much help!
It seems to me that it is incumbent on all parties to assist, in every way we can, our fellow citizens in adapting and converting to this change. That is an obligation we all have, since all of us supported the conversion to metric. But the other obligation falls upon the government. You do not need to fine anybody. Any merchant who decides voluntarily not to convert to metric is going to go broke three or four years down the road; he will be out of business. His suppliers will not understand his orders because those orders will be in Imperial measure and he will not get his supply. His customers will understand kilograms and litres and they will not understand his pints and pounds. So you do not need any fines. In fact, Mr. Speaker, all 282 of us could rally a wealth of support and effort to understand. I suspect that I, among many other members of this House, am still in my head about 10 or 15 years behind in this conversion matter. My children know it. I do not have any grandchildren but the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose) has grandchildren who understand it. It is there; it is a fact of life; it is a reality. This mindless screaming and yelling really harms the country. All we need is to get the government to be a little smarter about how they are doing it, not what they are doing.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Its tough on the Liberals.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I urge the minister to go to his colleague, that tightwad, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston), and the other tightwad, the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), and get 100 per cent credit on the cost of conversion to metric. That will help a lot of ordinary citizens.
The corporations have already converted and have passed on the cost to the customers. In the price of your car, tractor or combine, those costs have been passed on. The consumers are absorbing them. But the corner grocer, the plumber, the people who are still converting, buying another set of tools or a new set of scales, do not have sufficient benefit. They are not being treated equally under our tax laws or under our pricing system. The corporations have already done the conversion, many of whom persuaded the government to do the conversion. The minister should be very generous in this conversion and forget about taking people to court and having fines imposed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Anyone who will not convert now will convert in any event four or five years from now. That will not be because it is compulsory, not because it is not voluntary, but just because he will not have any choice. It will have become the mode used in our economy and in our commerce. We have probably got more than halfway to completion already. You cannot fly in the face of what is actually going on and expanding.
Supply
In regard to the United States, I recall that in a committee in 1970 and in this House, and again in 1971 and again in 1975, we were told the Americans were going to convert and that we were going to convert in Canada within ten years. Well, it is taking us 12 or 15 years. It will take the Americans 20 or 25 years, but the Americans are going to convert; there are no ifs, ands or buts. It is likely that it will not be done by the American government but by the multinational corporations. They are going to make sure that the American bolt fits in a French tank. That is already in process. The Standing Committee on Transport visited Bombardier, which manufactures LRC trains. Bombardier was the successful tenderer in New Jersey, Oregon, Washington, California and various cities.


Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: And Mexico.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mexico and various cities and states in the United States. When those states and cities called for tenders, they asked for them in metric; they did not ask for them in inches, yards or pounds. The process in corporations and state and municipal governments in the United States is already in place, regardless of what the Ronald Reagan republicans have to say. It is already in place. It is there. It will grow. It will take five or ten years longer in the United States than it will here, but that is the only difference.
I agree with the gist of the motion of the hon. member for Peterborough as it applies to how the government is implementing metrication. I hope we have persuaded the minister that it is the "how" that is important. I hope he will go back to the drawing board and be much more generous with the people metric costs.
A farmer puts so many bushels of wheat and so many gallons of treatment for his seed into his drill. In his sprayer he puts in so many pounds of chemicals or fertilizers. There is one thing which could be made compulsory tomorrow, and there is no darned reason in the world why the minister should not do it. We would agree that it should be compulsory that chemical companies put dual directions on five-gallon cans or on bulk tanks which are delivered by various and sundry fertilizer, petroleum and insecticide distributors. That would help people understand and convert, and it would save them time and money. That is the proper route.
While we support the gist of the motion of the official opposition, we dislike the direction some hon. members of the official opposition have taken. At the same time we dislike the methods used in implementing conversion to metric, particularly as they apply to tradesmen, retail merchants and farmers. This is the area in which the minister must be much more generous.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Irwin).

May 14, 1982
Supply


Mr. Ron Irwin (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin)
was-


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Chair recognized a Liberal speaker and then an NDP speaker, and now the Chair is recognizing another Liberal speaker. This is our opposition day.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I understand the concern of the hon. member very well, but it has always been a practice, accepted by the whips of the parties-with whom the Chair co-operates on a continual basis-that we alternate from a government spokesman to an opposition spokesman. The Chair has already recognized two opposition spokesmen, and this time I am recognizing a government spokesman. I am following our practice to the letter.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: You will be next, Gordon.


Ron Irwin: Mr. Speaker-


Thomas Gordon Towers: You have not heard the last of this one, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Ron Irwin: I am rising for the third time, Mr. Speaker. The opposition keeps objecting, as it is doing with respect to the metric system. Hon. members opposite are heading headlong into the eighteenth century and moving the clock back. Even a stopped clock is right twice every 24 hours.
I was not here in the House when metric was passed and I was not here when it began to be implemented, but I was a citizen and I remember the initial reaction at the border when a CBC reporter interviewed Americans coming over to Canada. One person was asked what he thought of Celsius. He said, "I haven't even been there yet." Then the interviewer asked another person whether he thought the change would make much difference in the distance between Sault Ste. Marie and Sudbury. That person said, "I think so; it will be a shorter trip." This story is part of the historical record, and it should be on the record because this is a very serious debate this afternoon. The reporter tried to correct that person. He said that the distance between the cities would not change. He said it was the same distance. The American replied, "Yes, but the kilometres go by faster!"
I have since learned that there have been other benefits. I checked with my secretary, and she tells me that it is psychologically good for a woman to go into a store and say: "I wear a size 92 centimetre". My secretary also tells me the metric system is good because people are now only half their previous weight!


André Ouellet: That is why Kempling supports it.


Ron Irwin: I am told that is why the hon. member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling) supports it. There is a psychological benefit.
Usually I say it is a pleasure and a privilege to speak here on a Friday afternoon, but today is historic. The hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) was elected in 1979 on an antimetric platform. He defeated the Hon. Hugh Faulkner. The hon. member for Peterborough waited so long for his metric ship to come in that his pier collapsed. Where is he? He has left the House. His pier has collapsed. Until I did some research last night I did not understand why the only questions he has asked in the House and the only motions he has moved in the House over the last three years have been about the metric system.


Peter Elzinga: That is not true.


Ron Irwin: There have been other questions?


Peter Elzinga: Of course.


Ron Irwin: I stand corrected, but when I have been here the only questions put and the only motions moved by the hon. member for Peterborough have been about the metric system.


Peter Elzinga: He asked about capital punishment.


Ron Irwin: Oh, he asked about capital punishment. I am sorry. I stand corrected by the hon. member opposite.
The hon. member for Peterborough must understand history. I have researched it. The hon. member keeps talking about the Imperial system. What he does not realize is that the Imperial system he wants to adopt is really a French system. The French got rid of it at the time of the revolution when they went metric, followed by about 90 per cent of the world. I know a lot of history about this subject because I was very serious in preparing for today's debate. The crazy 60s cycle we are in is from Babylon. It is a mystical, religious thing. There are 60 seconds, 360 degrees and 60 minutes. Feet come from paces. If a room was 20 paces by 30 paces, the measurement evolved to be 20 feet by 30 feet.
There is a big difference between the origin of the Roman or Italian inch and the English inch. The inch actually comes from the Roman uncia, which means one-twelfth of anything. The English came along and said, "No, no; historically the inch comes from three barley corns." The English said that three barley corns equal one inch. As a matter of fact, even today barley corns are used in shoes. The difference between a shoe size nine and a shoe size ten is one barley corn, or one-third of an inch.
The matter gets more complicated when we get to miles. The mile comes from the Italian milliare, which was the distance a Roman army would cover if it marched 1,000 paces. A mile was 5,000 Roman feet. The English would have nothing to do with that. One could not divide English feet and yards into the Roman mile, so the English came up with the statute mile. This expression is borrowed from the Italian word
May 14, 1982

statutum, or "that which is set up". Why? Because it would not divide.
It was not good enough for the English just to have statute miles because the English had their navy to consider. The navy did not want to go with the statute mile, so it went with the nautical mile. A nautical mile is 6,076.1 feet. If that were not bad enough, the English had to have a third mile, the admiralty mile, which is 6,080 feet. That is what we have to live with today. As a matter of fact, around my area of Sault Ste. Marie, between what has been done in England and what has been done in the United States, we now have three types of pints, two types of quarts and three types of gallons. We have a system of pints, quarts and gallons that is different from pints, quarts and gallons in Sault, Michigan. The United States also has another system of pints and gallons, so we wind up with three types of pints, three types of gallons and two types of quarts. That is what we are trying to rationalize.
There is nothing new about all this, Mr. Speaker. It goes back as far as the French Revolution. In 1789 the French got rid of the system that we are trying to evolve from, and by 1840 they had the metric system. I do not think things would have changed in Canada had it not been for the imperial push we received in 1965 when, because of the demands of industry, the United Kingdom decided to go metric. The big impetus for this whole program came from the United Kingdom. It was not only Canada that was affected either. In 1968 South Africa, Ireland, Tanzania, Kenya and Uganda were affected; in 1969 New Zealand and Rhodesia adopted the system. As a matter of fact, in New Zealand everything is metric at the moment except for snooker and billiards. In 1970 Canada, Sri Lanka and Zambia began the changeover.
All the countries in the world except Canada, the U.S.A., the United Kingdom, South Yemen, Burma, Brunei and Borneo are now either operating in metric or very close to it.
The history of what has happened in Canada has been told several times but it bears repeating. It is not something new. We have had the two systems in Canada since 1871. As a matter of fact, they have had the two systems in the United States almost as long. In 1875 we signed the Treaty of Metre; in 1960 the Agreement of Metric Nations and then in 1970 there was the white paper on metric conversion.
Who has supported all this, Mr. Speaker? The list represents a cross-section of the country. There is the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Hospital Association, the Consumers' Association of Canada, the Agricultural Institute of Canada, the Canadian Construction Association, and the Canadian Teachers' Federation. The white paper of January 16, 1970, was supported by Mr. Ged Baldwin of the Progressive Conservative Party, the hon. member for Winnipeg-North Centre (Mr. Knowles) for the NDP, and Mr. Gilbert Rondeau for the Social Credit Party. All three parties agreed with the white paper.
On March 17, 1975, when the guideline dates were moved in the House they were supported by the hon. member for
Supply
Burlington (Mr. Kempling) for the Progressive Conservative Party, Mr. Arnold Peters for the NDP and Mr. C. A. Gauthier for the Social Credit Party.
In 1976 the omnibus bill went from the House to the committee, witnesses were heard, it came back and-as far as history will ever record it-was passed unanimously by the House. I am surprised that after all these years the hon. member does not know what a vote in the House is. The bill was voted on and passed. If the hon. member opposite did not like it then, he should have stood up and at least have been on record as opposing it.


Thomas Gordon Towers: It was not voted on.


Ron Irwin: That was a vote of the House in 1976. In 1971 the provinces unanimously supported the resolution, and in 1977 they changed their highway signs. It is now in all provincial school curricula, and on all highway signs. Each province has a metric co-ordinator. The national building code is in metric. New Brunswick was the first province to adopt it in October, 1981.
Let us look at what happened in the business sector. The Ford Motor Company has build the Escort, the Lynx and LN7 according to metric specifications. The company says that within three to five years it will convert its operation completely to metric. General Motors began its conversion in 1973, and at the moment 95 per cent of its car output is in metric.
Mr. Ray Pinard, chairman of the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, says that they " .. . have been shipping to overseas markets for years in metric."
The output of steel is now 20 per cent metric. The food industry is 70 per cent metric. Ellis-Don Ltd. of Toronto says that 40 per cent of its projects are completely metric.
We should consider the costs now, Mr. Speaker. General Motors says that it amounts to less than one per cent of the cost estimates made in 1960. Mr. Bill Ellison, director of engineering standards for General Motors says that it was "easier than we anticipated". Mr. Ron Strang, supervisor of engineering standards for Caterpillar Tractor Company says, "It hasn't been difficult at all." He also says that "I think everyone has made a mountain out of this thing".
The hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) is so lost for issues that he comes here making a mountain out of a molehill. I cannot think of a greater waste of the taxpayers' money on a Friday afternoon. I am not sure of the cost of keeping the House of Commons open, Mr. Speaker, but I think it is about $500,000 per day. I cannot think of a worse use of the taxpayers' money than to spend $500,000 on this issue today. We have economic problems and more important things to do in the country. I think this is a waste of the taxpayers' money, and I want that on record.
The hon. member for Peterborough is always talking about what is happening in the United States. Of the top 1,000 manufacturing and industrial firms in the United States, two thirds foresee using metric as their predominant system. Most of them make at least one product in metric and more than

May 14, 1982
Supply
half favour metric conversion within the next 20 years. Only 16 per cent report sales losses due to lack of supply of metric sizes. School children are learning the system in the United States; cameras are metric; film is metric; prescription drugs are metric; ski equipment is metric. In electricity supplies, amperes, volts and watts are all metric. Soft drinks, wines and alcoholic beverages are metric, so are grocery stores; General Motors will be fully metric this year, and 20 per cent of gas pumps will have converted to metric.
The Port of New Orleans handles 18 per cent of offshore transportation and it wants a total conversion to metric in order to protect foreign markets. The fastener industry in the United States plans total conversion. The food and drug administration wants the nutrition data in metric on all food packages. President Reagan supports the 1975 act, contrary to what is said by hon. members opposite.
It comes down to a choice of whether we make metric mandatory at certain times. Japan did not, and it took that country 40 years to convert. England started the program, then got cold feet and now there is chaos because it is half in and half out. Australia started at the same time we did and has completed the program. Mr. John Norgard, the head of the Australia Metric Conversion Board has said that the most trouble-free changeovers were those in which it was possible to have a definite cut-off.
There are several reasons why we should be moving to metric, Mr. Speaker, the most important of which is that 90 per cent of other nations in the world have converted. Mr. Cleo Mowers of the Metric Commission has said that two systems will not work; that the United States is going metric; that the provinces are full partners; that at all times there has been allparty support for the program; that in a few years most Canadians will know only the metric system, and that other nations have gone through the same process and have no regrets.
In this House when a whip or a leader speaks for his party, that should be accepted as the position of that party. I do not think we can push and pull in politics, at least not in the House of Commons, and retain credibility.
On November 14, 1979 when this party was in opposition, the hon. member for Timmins-Chapleau (Mr. Chenier) put this question to the then minister for consumer and corporate affairs:
-I would like to ask the minister how he intends to ensure that metric conversion is completed, or does he intend to act on his own to dismantle the program?
The minister said:
Certainly not, Mr. Speaker. The government-
Which was Progressive Conservative at the time:
-is still wedded to the concept of metrication.


Douglas Charles Neil: But not forced.


Ron Irwin: The world moves on-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The Tories don't.


Ron Irwin: The Tories do not. That is exactly where I was heading. The Tories move onward to the 18th century. That has been their history on the NEP, the budget, the Charter of Rights; you name it. I have been sitting here for two years, not debating the future but debating and listening to the past. It is no different today. The Tories move on with vigour and passion into the 18th century. But with or without them it will move.
It is difficult to change the status quo, but the responsible thing to do for Canada and Canadians is to move with the times. This we have done, Mr. Speaker, patiently and within the process we know, and that is exactly what history will record. In the final analysis I think this whole process will be nothing but a footnote, because we are going to be virtually the last country on this planet to convert to the metric system.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, first of all I reserve the right to bring up a question of privilege on the Speaker's decision whether it was my turn to speak. We had a speaker, the government side had a speaker, and the NDP had a speaker on our motion. I felt I was entitled to be the next speaker, but the Speaker chose a member from the government side. In other words, they had two back to back.


André Ouellet: Not back to back.


Thomas Gordon Towers: I am not going to waste the time of the House arguing about it; we will do that another time. However, I have never heard so much garbage in all my life as I have today from the minister and his parliamentary secretary, as well as the hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin). Talk about people who do not know what they are talking about!


John O. (Jack) Burghardt: Mr. Speaker, I just want to correct a statement made by the hon. member. The government side did not have speakers back to back as he just stated.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for London West (Mr. Burghardt) has made his point. I am sure the matter will be examined and if there are further discussions they will take place at an appropriate time.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, as to the hon. member for Regina West, I have never seen a case of skinned shins like the one he displayed today because there is not way a person can come down on both sides of the fence without getting skinned. Of course a person who tries to sit on the fence and keep his ear to the ground gets out of position, and I guess that is what has happened to the hon. member today. I ask the hon. member for Regina West what form of metric was he talking about. There are so many different types of measurements in the world today that it is creating horrendous problems, especially for the agriculture industry. The minister and his parliamentary secretary have apparently forgotten about that, or they know nothing about it.
May 14, 1982

A businessman called me the other day. He had a German-made loader on which he broke the hose. It was a metric hose. He bought a Canadian-made hose, the same size, drove 50 miles, and took it back because it would not fit.
I would be the last person in the world to stop a universal system, Mr. Speaker. In fact, I would have thought that, had the government any imagination whatsoever, that is the type of system we would be moving to. But we are not; we have a worse system today than we ever had. I just happen to have half a dozen nuts and bolts here, and this is what it is all about, Mr. Speaker. I know I am not supposed to display anything, but here they are if anyone wants to see them. None of them will fit. In the agriculture industry it used to be that you had your two styles and the measurements were always the same: 1/2; 3/4; 7/8; 3/16; or whatever it is. They were all the same. You could guarantee that a coarse thread of any size would fit, the same with a fine thread. And here these are, and none of them fit. This is the problem we are running into. I am told there are up to 15 different sizes in bolts, so it means that you can no longer go by size, you have to go by parts. Can you imagine what that will mean to the business community, to farmers? No longer can they rely on what we have called the Imperial measurement.
We have been ridiculed this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, because Sir John A. Macdonald allowed two systems of measurement. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, Canada came a long way with the two systems side by side in 110 years. I learned metric when I went to school, and there was no problem. I learned the Imperial system. They worked together and that is the way it has been. And all this garbage which has been presented to us today is absolutely unbelievable. They read a statement from the President of the United States. Well, what has happened in the U.S.? The U.S. Metric Board has been told by the Reagan administration to walk their last kilometre. Their transportation department floated a plan for switching highway signs from miles to kilometres, but an outcry from Congress prevented it from reaching the board for official consideration. The same for a plan by the national weather service to determine temperatures exclusively in Celsius instead of Fahrenheit. That metric weather plan never reached the board for consideration, and is dormant.
We just heard that the provinces were full partners in this plan. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think it was the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who misled the premiers of our provinces. I remember in 1976, when one of the provinces made a move towards metrication, I asked a member of that legislature why they did it. He said that the Prime Minister said it was inevitable and that all of Canada was going that way. He misled them. Now we find the provinces backing out. Just this week Nova Scotia, unanimously-I suppose that takes in some Liberal members, if they have any-moved a resolution to opt out of forced metric. For them to stand up in this House and say that the provinces are full partners, well, 1 have never heard anything so ridiculous and dishonest in my life.
The minister says he is going to assist any hardship cases. Is he prepared to assist the broadloom company in Montreal which has a chain of, I think, seven stores? They have gone
Supply
bankrupt, and they have now been fined $1,700 for not complying with the government's order in council, its edict on forced metrication. Is the minister prepared to assist the woman in Calgary who appeared before a court not so many days ago because she was advertising her product in metric and Imperial side by side so that she would be taking advantage? A representative of the minister's department went into her store and laid a charge, so is the minister prepared to assist her? Is that what our charter of rights means? We have this kind of thing happening to some of our people before the ink on the charter is even dry. Where is the freedom in this country? I guess possibly one of the problems which has befallen us as Conservatives is that in 1975-76 we trusted that government to keep its word.
Reference has been made time and time again to the white paper Ged Baldwin agreed to. Yes, Ged Baldwin agreed to a voluntary system of weights and measurements, nothing more! That is what we agreed to in 1975-76. There was not a vote on that omnibus bill when it went through-and this is why I have argued with members opposite-because we were not happy with it. The government had a majority. We made a deal with the government that if it put back the measurement of acres in the bill relating to the Canadian Wheat Board and left the system voluntary, we would not oppose it by a vote even though we had held up the bill for months. The government wanted that bill. There was a further understanding with respect to that, which was that we would keep in step with the United States.
We are told that we are going into metric to facilitate our trade. But 75 per cent of our trade is with the United States. How utterly ridiculous that is. I have seven or eight documents here which show that Canadian companies are making deals with their United States counterpats and there is money coming into Canada for deals all made in Imperial measurement. My friend, the hon. member for Regina West, said that he was out to Bombardier, and the U.S. wanted the LRC in metric. They only take it in metric because that is the way it is set up. But the hon. member never said anything about Cana-dair, did he, Mr. Speaker? He never said anything about Canadair at all. Canadair tried to go metric but it could not. Other facets of the air industry have tried to go metric but they cannot do it. Why does the government take the small corner grocery stores across our country and enforce metric measurement on them? There are certain areas where metric conversion is unenforceable. Why do hon. members opposite not talk to representatives of the lumber industry in British Columbia? I talked to a member of that industry the other day. He told me that the only orders he has in metric are from the federal government. He told me that all sales to the United States are in the Imperial measurement. The largest order ever from Japan for prefab homes is in the Imperial measurement. Why in the world does the government lay on the heavy hand and force people into something that is unnecessary? People

May 14, 1982
Supply
should not have to convert to metric, quite apart from the fact that it is very costly to do so.
Today I asked the minister a question. He almost jeered at me as if I were creating problems. That question is very relevant in western Canada because it has to do with the beef farmer and the beef industry, which industry is one of the greater providers of income in Alberta. I want to read a portion of a letter written to me from Mr. Ralph Void who speaks on behalf of the beef farmers. This letter is dated September 1, 1981. In part his letter reads:
This photostat tells the story January 1, 1984. Could we not have another election before this?
I do not suppose we will. Mr. Void enclosed a photocopy of a document to which he was referring. His letter also stated:
I have been in Ottawa three times and Winnipeg twice over metric.
Mr. Void made five trips to Winnipeg and to Ottawa in an attempt to impress upon the government that it should not be moving to convert the beef industry to metric. But now a brown envelope has shown up mysteriously stating that the government intends to force metric in the beef industry on January 21, 1984. That is not fair. It is not just and it is not in the best interests of the livestock industry. The argument is used that it is being done for trade. Goodness me, anyone who knows anything about trade in the beef industry recognizes that the greatest amount of trade is with our neighbour to the south, the United States. The buyers of our purebred cattle come up here to sales and shows. I do not suppose anybody opposite, not even the member for Regina West, has ever been to a livestock show, otherwise he would know that in front of each animal is the date of birth and the rate of weight gain. The hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex (Mr. Bloomfield) understands this. The rate of gain is very important. The pounds per day gain is what they recognize in the United States. But now the Americans will come up here and will have to figure out everything in kilograms. Of course, the same situation will occur when animals are sold at auction. I do not know how many members opposite have ever been to a cattle auction. I doubt whether the minister himself has ever been inside an auction mart. At these auctions, split second decisions have to be made in the purchase of large numbers of cattle. As I say, trade goes back and forth across the border. It is a very healthy industry and it is a healthy way to do business. But all that will have to change. Canadians are going to be forced into a different system than the one followed in the United States.
As time goes on, and perhaps if this government is successful in what it is trying to do, it will mean that our young people who are growing up today, will know nothing about the system that is being used in the United States. That, to me, is a crazy way of doing things. I am sure our young people going to school today are just as intelligent as we were when we were going to school and we had the two systems.
The government is trying to push two languages. Therefore, why can we not have two systems of weights and measures? It seems to me that before we have two language systems, it would be far better for us to have two systems of weights and measures which have stood us in good stead for well over 100
years. The government is wrong. It is dead wrong going in that direction. The only sensible thing to do, as the hon. member for Regina West said, was for the government to allow industries or businesses to go to the system best suited to their interests, and let them convert to metric in their own time. But here we have a government that is prepared to throw people in jail. This government is prepared to fine people up to $5,000 if they do not comply with the edicts of this government.
There has never been a time in Canadian history when the Canadian people distrusted a government as much as they distrust this one, and I will tell you why. First, there was the War Measures Act, which was the start of it all. Second came wage and price controls. Third, the government told Canadians that energy prices should not go up too drastically. But look at what has happened. Three times now we have heard the people say, "That is enough." And it is a reason, in spite of what the minister says, for the majority of Canadians to tell us they do not want the metric system enforced upon them at this time. There is absolutely no way that Canadians are prepared to accept that edict. If the minister thinks he is right, why does he not have a plebiscite on the matter and give the people a chance to voice their opinion? If the minister were really honest in the approach he is taking, he would disband temporarily the Metric Commission. He could wait for the next election, which will probably come in a year or two. We have lived 110 years with the two systems side by side. Why can we not live for another two years with it? Let us have a plebiscite at the same time as the next election. Let the people vote on whether or not they want to convert to metric. I am sure if the majority of Canadians wanted the metric system, the minority would go along with them. But the majority is not prepared to accept the edict of this government.
We have just had a provincial by-election in my constituency in western Canada. I am sure that members opposite are pretty much aware of the results of it.


André Ouellet: You lost.


Thomas Gordon Towers: One of the main platforms on which that candidate was elected was anti-metric. He garnered more votes than all other candidates put together. The minister then tells me that a majority of the people favour the metric system. How is it then that that candidate won an election on that issue with over 50 per cent of the vote?
Some of the things the minister has been saying are absolutely untrue. The government's approach to metrication is callous, brutal, insensitive, and it is an underhanded method. It is unfortunate that it is being imposed upon Canadians by order in council, the refuge of the scoundrel. The government does not have the courage or the courtesy to permit Canadians to have laws which affect their lives and their livelihood discussed in open debate in the House. Again, it governs by stealth through jackboot tactics. I protest the brown shirt method of circumventing parliamentary debate through the use of order in council to impose metrication, make imperial
May 14, 1982

illegal and set up a system of fines or imprisonment for those Canadians who prefer to engage in business and commerce in Imperial or in both systems.
For the benefit of the minister who said that perhaps we have been reading some of these stories, Mrs. Kasparian told me this morning, after quite a lengthy discussion, that she is quite prepared to go to jail before she will change her mind or pay a fine.


John O. (Jack) Burghardt: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to this motion which requests a moratorium on the implementation of a planned metric conversion program in Canada.
As my friend, the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Irwin) mentioned earlier, he was not in the House when the idea and the approval was given for converting to the metric system. I, too, was not here.
However, I have been involved in the media and broadcasting industry over the years and recall doing a number of special programs relating to the conversion to the metric system on a number of occasions. It is because of that experience that I wanted to have an opportunity to speak this afternoon.
Based on some past records and information, I think it is very necessary that we set the record straight with facts and figures since all we have heard throughout this entire metric debate-especially from the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) and some of his colleagues-has been nothing but scare tactics. We heard about scare tactics from the last speaker, the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) when he talked about fines and imprisonment and created the impression that everyone opposed to metric will go to jail. That is the furthest thing from the truth. I believe any sensible Canadian knows that. It is nothing but scare tactics on the part of the opposition.


Mr. Miller:: The Official Opposition.


James Aloysius McGrath: The only opposition.


John O. (Jack) Burghardt: It is really very little opposition today. For example, when we think of the concerns about the beef industry, I would remind the House that the chairman of the Metric Commission, Mr. McArthur, comes from the city of Calgary and is a retired businessman. Also, the executive director of the Metric Commission, Mr. Beckman, is also from Alberta and previously was a civil servant in the provincial government. I am sure that these two gentlemen will have the very best interests of the beef farmer in mind when it comes to implementing the metric system. I am sure that the beef farmers, not only in western Canada but throughout all of Canada, will be well served just by the fact that we have these two men in place operating the Metric Commission in our country.
The debate so far as been very emotional. As I mentioned earlier, I would like to put on the record some of the events which have taken place in a very quiet and orderly manner. It is very easy to rant and rave and present scare tactics, as we
Supply
have heard this afternoon. It is another matter to conduct proper research and come up with the proper facts and figures. Therefore, I would like to mention some of those facts officially for the record.
First, I will describe the nature of the national conversion program as it now exists. As has already been mentioned this afternoon, over 100 sectors are operating within the framework of the Metric Commission of Canada and represent all areas of endeavor ranging from iron and steel mills to fishing and farming. Of course, the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie is well aware of what is happening in the iron and steel mills.
Of these 100 sectors, only three-gasoline sales by the litre, home furnishings and retail food scales-are subject to regulations under the Weights and Measures Act of 1976-77. Both of these Acts were fully debated over many months and Consumer and Corporate Affairs Canada was requested by the industries involved to make relevant regulation changes in support of the conversion to the metric system. Not only were these regulation changes supported by industry, they were also endorsed by the Consumers Association of Canada. The remaining sectors are converting according to time tables as suggested by over 2,000 industry volunteers in every sector of the Canadian economy. In order to facilitate the implementation of sector plans, existing measurement sensitive regulations and legislation must be converted to metric units at some point in the program. In this respect there are three main industries where regulations under the federal Weights and Measures Act are restrictive with respect to measurement units. They are the three which I mentioned earlier: gasoline dispensing, home furnishings and retail food sales.
Metric Commission Canada has established planning methods and scheduling procedures based on industry consensus for the renewal and approval of the sector plans which are national in their scope and application.
The planning methodology established by the commission for use of voluntary-I stress the word "voluntary"-sector committees offers the means of change, and the actual implementation is initiated in co-operation with the specified business or industrial sector.
I would like to mention in greater detail each of the three conversion programs where it had been considered necessary to publish regulations under the Weights and Measures Act. I wish to do so in order to dispel the notion that metric conversion is being implemented in Canada by legislative compulsion in the face of overwhelming resistance from business, industry, education, labour and consumer organizations.
With respect to the conversion to gasoline sales by the litre and the conversion of other petroleum products, an ad hoc committee comprised of representatives from the major Canadian petroleum companies first met in July, 1972-ten years ago-to assess the opportunities and problems facing the industry with respect to metric conversion. One year later the group agreed to the formation of a committee covering petroleum refineries, wholesalers and gasoline service stations for the purpose of developing a suitable conversion plan and

May 14, 1982
Supply
timetable. The complete plan was approved for publication in September of 1976.
This sector has a major economic impact on the Canadian economy. Petroleum products with which we are familiar and which are refined and marketed in Canada include gasoline, fuel oils, lubricating and illuminating oils, greases and petrochemical agricultural products. During 1976, some remote areas of the country were faced with gasoline prices in excess of $1 per gallon. I am sure many members will remember that the response by the industry was to introduce half-gallon pricing, since pump price dials could not be set at a price greater than 99.9 cents per gallon. At the same time, Consumer and Corporate Affairs Canada was urging the industry to minimize half-gallon pricing. A bulletin put out by CCAC in 1976 limited the duration of half-gallon pricing to 12 months. As a result, the sector's pump conversion task force examined the feasibility of converting service station pumps to dispensing in litres. Alternatives to metric conversion were considered but none were viable.
The sector committee persuaded CCAC to rescind its bulletin limiting half-gallon pricing on the understanding that the industry was committed to the eventual conversion of service station pumps to litre dispensing. In preparation for conversion, new pumps were being ordered beginning in late 1975 with supplementary metric gear boxes installed which could be activated later so as to operate in the litre mode.
The sector's metric conversion plan called for conversion to commence on January 1, 1979, and be essentially complete in two years' time. However, both the industry and CCAC were concerned with a possible haphazard conversion of pumps to metric. Thus, regulations were drafted by CCAC in concert with the sector committee, so that pump conversion could begin on January 1, 1979 and, with certain exceptions, be complete by December 31, 1980. The exceptions referred to small retail outlets in remote regions dispensing less than 100,000 gallons per year. The conversion of retail pumps began on schedule and implementation is complete at this time except in some sparsely populated regions. Virtually no complaints were received concerning the program, making it a "non-event" in terms of consumer reaction.
Aside from the conversion of retail gasoline pumps, the provincial tax acts for petroleum products had to be converted. As we know, all provinces now have litre taxes. Perhaps one of the most difficult areas in the program which required considerable lead time was the conversion of the many measurement-sensitive business systems used by each company.
The use of regulations under the Weights and Measures Act was also requested by the home furnishings industry. The minister referred to this earlier today. A notice was published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, on March 17, 1979 by Consumer and Corporate Affairs Canada to issue regulations under the Weights and Measures Act regarding this industry. The proposed regulations established cut-off dates after which the advertising, offering for sale or sale of piece goods and home
furnishings in other than the international metric system of units would be illegal. The products involved include linens, beddings, furniture, carpets, wallpaper and resilient flooring. The request for regulations was initiated by a subcommittee on home furnishings of the sector committee for consumers, home economics and retail trade. The recommendation was supported by the full sector committee and other committees for textiles, wood, furniture, paper and allied products, and labour.
In addition, the following national associations, through relevant sector committees or on an individual basis, formally stated their support for the regulations: The Canadian Home Sewing Association, The Retail Council of Canada, The Retail Merchants Association of Canada, The Consumers' Association of Canada, The Canadian Textile Association, The Canadian Home Economics Association, The Canadian Retail Hardware Association and The Canadian Carpet Institute.
The committee on home furnishings decided it would be in the best interests of the consumer to plan for metric conversion to take place in all of their areas at the same time. This decision was based on a reasonable assumption that someone buying carpeting would likely be wanting to look at furniture, bedspreads and wallpaper at the same time. It was thought that it would be only confusing for the consumer to have to buy one of these products in customary units and another in metric units. It was also felt that because of the competitive nature of their own industry, regulations would be required to ensure that all retailers converted at the same time. Just on that point, the hon. member for Red Deer mentioned a carpet company which had gone out of business in the Montreal area, I believe. The courts are now charged with the matter. I am sure the hon. member knows that that case is before the courts and should not be raised in this House-


William Henry (Bill) Domm: It is over.


John O. (Jack) Burghardt: -because we could certainly get into arguments with the other side. However, be that as it may, the reason the retailers wanted to convert at the same time was to ensure that the consumer would be easily able to compare prices between stores, because one store might show the price per square yard while the other would show the price per square metre, which is about 20 per cent larger.
The third area where regulations have been used concerns retail food scale conversion. The working group on scales in the retail food industries is comprised of representatives of food retailing chains and independents, scales manufacturing and servicing enterprises, consumers and weights and measures regulating authorities. They are all involved. In 1977, the working group formally requested suitable regulations under the Weights and Measures Act to deal with advertising, as well as the conversion of scales, which were deemed necessary for achieving a co-ordinated and orderly transition to metric units. The decision to request necessary regulations for the conversion of retail food scales was based on experience gained in Australia and New Zealand where the initial effort to convert Australian retail scales on a strictly voluntary and
May 14, 1982

retailer-by-retailer approach proved unsuccessful. Subsequently, under regulation, programs in both countries were implemented smoothly without undue confusion to consumers.
The initial decision to make metric conversion mandatory in this sector was made by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) and the cabinet on the recommendation of the food retailers and with the full support of the Consumers' Association of Canada. The hon. member for Red Deer also mentioned a lady in the city of Calgary, I believe, who had been charged because of improper advertising. He did not mention the fact that this particular person had been warned at least 12 times that she was contravening the regulations and that the complaint came not from the Consumers' Association of Canada, not from the Government of Canada and not from the Liberal Party but, rather, from her competitors who felt it was unfair for her to be advertising in the manner in which she had been doing. So, let us get that on the record and get that story straight, as well.
Apart from the three sectors which are converting with the assistance of regulations under the Weights and Measures Act, the balance of the over 100 sectors within Metric Commission Canada's structure are quietly proceeding with their voluntary conversion programs which require minimal legislative action to effect implementation.
It may come as a surprise to many hon. members of the House that an example of one of the many low profile sectors converting to metric, without fanfare and on a strictly voluntary basis, is the fire-fighting equipment and operation sector, which is a very important sector to our way of life and to our protection as Canadian citizens. This sector includes equipment manufacturers and distributors as well as the fire protection and fire fighting services across Canada. Several major associations and government bodies when contacted in October, 1977 expressed considerable enthusiasm in forming a sector committee to determine their interest in metric conversion.
Associations which are represented include the Canadian Fire Apparatus Manufacturers Association, the Fire Equipment Manufacturers Institute, the International and Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs and the Association of Canadian Fire Marshalls and Fire Commissioners. Standards writing organizations such as Underwriters Laboratories and the National Fire Protection Association are also represented. Sector committee members are directly involved in the various aspects of the industry. The economic impact of this sector is mainly associated with the supplies, equipment and capital facilities which are used by the fire protection and firefighting services. The major emphasis concerns safety and the establishment of effective operational services, yet we have all these organizations, the firefighting community, in line with metric conversion. We know the principal benefits expected from metric conversion in this sector concerning the economy and safety enhancement that can be realized from the standardization of many types of equipment.
Supply
Metric conversion provides an excellent opportunity to address standardization in an efficient and effective manner as all parties are adequately represented on the committee. The standardization of equipment is viewed as a long-term goal. Equipment which is already in use will not become obsolete because of metric conversion. The application of a single coherent measurement system for both equipment and operational use is also considered beneficial to members.
A comprehensive metric conversion plan was prepared by the sectors' planning subcommittee and was approved by all elements within the sector in February 1979. Shortly thereafter the sectors' recommendations for standardized sizes dated May 1979 were prepared by the standardization subcommittee of the sector. The report was distributed widely for public, industry and government comment, and appropriate corrections and clarifications were incorporated. The Association of Canadian Fire Marshals and Fire Commissioners has accepted the equipment standardization report in its entirety.
January 1981 was a major event in the sectors' conversion program. This was the date when the staff at a majority of fire stations across Canada commenced using the metric system in day to day use. Fluid flow and pressure gauges were also converted before this date. To support this program, a public awareness poster concerning measurement units has been distributed widely. Comprehensive training programs for firefighters have also been developed.
The committee has published "Training Guidelines for Metric Conversion in the Fire Services of Canada" to support provincial training programs. Those firefighters who have been trained report that metric is easy to use and simplifies many calculations, particularly those concerning hydraulics.
One very important sector of society involved in the protection and safety of Canadians has already converted to the metric system. I could go on and on. Many other points have already been mentioned.
In conclusion I would like to state that in view of the considerable progress which has been made in the metric conversion program over the last ten years and the fact this program has been and is being conducted in a manner fully compatible with the wishes of those involved in the changeover, and this has been and can be proved, I cannot support the motion before us.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Mr. Speaker, it has been my custom through this ongoing debate on metric to speak in measured tones. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate (Mr. Ouellet) and the people of Hamilton-Wentworth will know that I have used all the restraint and moderation at my command when sounding off about this government's imposition of metric on the lifestyles of Canadians.
However, after listening to the minister's intervention earlier this afternoon, I find that my sense of restraint, that sense of moderation and patience, is being tried to the extreme. I have never heard such unadulterated bilge coming even from this

May 14, 1982
Supply
minister who was indeed protesting too much in his government's defence of force-marching Canadians into metric. Surely the minister in charge of metric conversion must have had his tongue gently nudging the inside of his cheek when he suggested to the House of Commons that metric conversion is being done fairly and that the large majority of Canadians are welcoming metric with open arms.
The minister cites the three incidences where metric conversion is mandatory, as the minister says, at the specific request of the industries concerned; gasoline by the litre, home furnishings and, oh yes, almost as an afterthought, the retail food sector.
I do not care what kind of argument this government tries to put up as to the viability of metric and the reasons why this country should go metric, the minister's speech can be summed up with one statement: everybody seems to be in step with metric except the people.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Irwin) made a statement which I believe needs challenging. He asked whether any member of this House could think of a worse way of wasting the taxpayers' money than by discussing this issue here on this Friday afternoon. He quoted a figure of something like $400,000 or $500,000 that it is costing the Canadian taxpayer to have this issue debated in the House of Commons.
One of our complaints over the years has been that the metric issue has not come before the House of Commons for a full-blown debate. Not one single piece of legislation has come before this House to be voted on. We feel that an issue as important as converting to metric, an issue which is a massive incursion into the lives of every individual Canadian, has not been ventilated and aired in this House of Commons.
If the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie wants to challenge us and ask what worse way there can be of spending the taxpayers' money than debating the metric issue in the House of Commons, I can think of one. It is the astronomical amount that this government has spent on metric conversion over the past 10, 11 or 12 years. It has been incredibly costly to convert to metric. It now amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars, if not $2 billion or $3 billion. Tell that to the pensioners, the consumers and the home owners. Hand out $2 billion or $3 billion to people who are in need of that money. Try to explain to them how the government can justify that expenditure for metric conversion.
I began to argue against the advisability of imposing metric conversion on Canadians when I first entered this House of Commons about four years ago. During the past four years I have been trying to bring democracy to metrication from the consumer's point of view. All governments in the free world are supposed to be responsible to public opinion. If it is responsible public opinion, it is the duty of a government to be responsible. In the case of metric conversion, we are dealing with many millions of Canadians who have made their views known to this government through their elected members of Parliament. As a spokesman for the consumers of Canada I entered this debate, the third or fourth such opposition debate
in this House, to register in no uncertain terms the outrage expressed by Canadians over this enforced metric business.
The latest Liberal government has been imposing metric on the Canadian population in a way which is nothing short of dictatorship. It is force-marching Canadians into metric shopping, demanding that Canadian home owners do metric cooking, have metric carpeting, metric carpentry, metric clothing, metric everything else. It strikes me as being repressive and undemocratic.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who once took the state out of the bedrooms of the nation, has now put the state into the kitchens, corner grocery stores and supermarkets of the nation. I know what the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is going to say. He will say that I, and many of my colleagues, and the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who have registered their protest against enforced metric conversion are a bunch of fanatics. I would prefer to present the case of the Canadian people, those who are virtually being ignored by this government. I would prefer to present their case through the letters that have come to me and to many of my colleagues and particularly to members of the media. As a former member of the media I have great respect for the journalists' reflection of the views of the people in their areas.
Without getting into the debate on whether metric was made legal or mandatory or was voluntary through the years, the Canadian people know that they were conned. They know that when metric was first introduced, it was voluntary. That was the intention of the Canadian government when it first presented the metric conversion before the House of Commons, in principle. It was a Friday afternoon just like today, there were not many members in the House, it was somewhere around four o'clock. It happened to be March 17, St. Patrick's Day, 1976, as I recall, when the House of Commons approved guidelines voluntarily. It was the assumption of every single Member of Parliament sitting in this House. I was not one of them, Mr. Speaker, I was sitting in the Press Gallery at the time. I was watching that debate. It was the clear understanding of every single Member of Parliament that adoption of metric would be voluntary. It was also the assumption of many sectors of Canadian society that this country could go metric in a voluntary way and particularly in step with our largest trading partners around the world.
Several of my colleagues have dealt with what has happened in Great Britain and in the United States. I have been interested to look into the Australian experience, and I will speak about that in a moment. In the meantime, why do we not look at what some of the media people have been saying across the country? In some communities and in some areas and in dealing with some subjects, the media people may leave something to be desired, they may be controversial. Nevertheless, in my view, they genuinely reflect what the people are thinking.
Let me start off with a pro-metric comment which comes from the Chronicle Journal in Thunder Bay. This was sent to
May 14, 1982

us through the courtesy of the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. McRae). The editorial deals with the massive petition which was tabled by my colleague, the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) in the House of Commons a few weeks ago. An editorial in the Thunder Bay Chronical Journal says:
The interesting aspect of all this latter day criticism is that seven years ago when the guidelines legislation was passed, all political parties were in favour of the switch.
I guess that technically that is right, that all 17 or 18 or 20 members of the House who were here on that Friday afternoon were in favour of going to metric in principle. None of us has ever denied that. The editorial carries on:
Canadians survived the switch to litres, the switch to kilometres, to Celsius temperatures and all those other aspects of metrication, with little more than momentary confusion and discontent and today most take all those things for granted.
Speaking for myself, Mr. Speaker, I can take them for granted, too. I can learn to live with kilometres, with Celsius- and I am getting at my osmosis-and I think many Canadians are trying to do that. The editorial continues:
But then metrication hit the retail trade and Domm-
Referring to my colleague from Peterborough.
-and such people as Neil Fraser, the federal civil servant for his continuing criticism of metrication and other government policies decided that they had to make a last ditch stand for what they say are their principles.
Too bad people don't recognize those principles for what they really are: political exploitation.
Well, Mr. Speaker, in fairness I am quoting the Chronicle Journal editorial. All I can say is that if political exploitation means that Members of Parliament respond to the very strenuous and urgent requests on behalf of hundreds and thousands, and indeed, millions of Canadians, that this headlong plunge into metric be slowed down or reviewed or made more democratic, if that is political exploitation, then I do not know why I or the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) or the hon. member for Peterborough or the hon. member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) or anyone of us in this House are here to represent the views of the people.
I make no apologies whatsoever in standing up in front of this House of Commons to state as strongly as I can on behalf of the people whom I represent, and not only my people but many millions of Canadians, that this government is going about the metrication process in the wrong way.
Let me quote, Mr. Speaker, from the Hamilton Spectator very briefly:
Shops and shoppers never asked for it but metric measures will become mandatory in the stores of Hamilton-Wentworth, Halton, Brant and Haldimand-Norfolk January 11.
It goes on:
Ottawa's metric conversion has been imposed in the arbitrary, callous style of a hamfisted dictatorship.
The only rationale the government has condescended to offer is that metric measurements would make things easier for our industries to see goods abroad.
That is not the truth and the government knows it is not the truth.
Supply
Approximately 60 per cent of Canada's exports go to the United States- which uses Imperial measures, with American variations. President Reagan's administration has-
It has already announced that the Metric Commission there will be wound down in September. He personally hopes that the government of the United States has walked its last kilometre. I know that the American system is voluntary, Mr. Speaker, and it is the voluntary aspect of metric that I want to come back to later.
The Toronto Globe and Mail, a pretty respected newspaper across this country, and one which has been known to take issue with us on subjects which we, the opposition, support, said "The Metres Don't Scan" and then:
The federal government has a curious device for monitoring reaction in the towns where it has enforced metric conversion. It turns a deaf ear.
In all three towns, grocery stores were ordered to convert from Imperial to metric; in all three, the stores switched back at the request of a hostile public.
But in the Commons the other day, Industry Minister Herbert Gray confirmed that the Liberal Government intends to order 21 more towns to convert next January.
That was this past January, Mr. Speaker. It continues:
The steamroller rolls, regardless, the wrong way along a one-way street.
There are stories, articles and editorials, by respected journalist and newspapers, from one end of the country to the other, which would indicate that this is not just a little group of fanatics from Ontario that are discussing this metric question.
Here is what the Cape Breton Post for Saturday, March 20, 1982, had to say:
Mr. Ouellet says "it's very sad to see a little group trying to make a cause at the last moment. Now, at the very last minute, there are some people trying to make a fuss about it. They have to be reminded that we have been doing things for the last 12 years in this direction."
What is really sad is that Mr. Ouellet, throughout his interview, produces no argument on behalf of metric but confines himself to downgrading the intelligence of opponents. "Those who are joining the anti-metric forces", he advises with that assurance which comes from membership in this federal government, "must surely be misinformed."
The editorial goes on to quote the Canadian Press:
'Actually, many small-business men and farmers have been vocally protesting for years against metric conversion, partly because of costs involved in adapting scales, tools and machinery.'
Small-business men and farmers-these are fanatics, Mr. Speaker!
We can go to the west coast. I can read some comments from one member of the media. Here is one:
I presume everyone heard-or read-the comments of U.S. Ambassador Paul Robinson who told a news conference that Canada will be at a "definite disadvantage" if it sticks to a schedule of conversion to metric by the end of next year.
The ambassador told us, as plainly as he could, "most Americans don't like metric at all," ... he thinks metric is "rubbish".
I realize the ambassador is in the news these days for his controversial statements but, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) has pointed out, the ambassador has the right to state his own opinion.

May 14, 1982
Supply
There are other of my colleagues who want to get into the debate this afternoon. I just want to make clear one more time that, speaking for myself and, I am sure, for members of my party, I am not against conversion to the metric system per se. I am willing to learn it. I am willing to adapt to it. I am learning it through osmosis. What I resent deeply and what the people we are hearing from resent very much is the way this government has gone about imposing metric.


André Ouellet: That is not true.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: The government is force marching Canadians into metric, and Canadians are fed up. They are fed up with this Liberal government's intrusion into people's private lives.


André Ouellet: You are misleading the House.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: I think it is time for parliamentarians to speak up and to speak out for millions of Canadians.


André Ouellet: Be honest.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: The minister asks me to be honest. I am speaking out as honestly as I possibly can. I have been speaking out as honestly as I can on behalf of many millions of Canadian consumers, and I am dealing far more honestly with this issue and far more honestly with the people of Canada-


André Ouellet: Millions? Come on.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: -than the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the Government of Canada. Surely it is the responsibility of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to safeguard the interests of Canadian consumers.
I repeat that we have been looking out for the senior citizens, pensioners and farmers of this country. Hon. members opposite cannot tell me that farmers are not having problems when all of a sudden they get one single measurement on a package and when the directions on the package tell farmers to spray a hectare with so many litres of dangerous insecticides and poisons, which are dangerous if they are improperly used and which must be used by specific measurements in order to do the job. Many farmers are running into problems on that score.
I repeat that 1 am not against metric conversion per se.


André Ouellet: Well, sit down.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: I am against forced metric conversion the way this government is going about it, and I am saying that if we are going to bring a sense of democracy to metric conversion, what is wrong with putting tandem measurements-imperial and metric-on packages to allow at least this generation of Canadians to become accustomed to the system? Surely, if the Government of Canada
can put French and English labelling on all packaged goods to give French Canadians and English Canadians and other Canadians freedom of choice with respect to language-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret interrupting the hon. member, but his time has expired. He may continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank members of the House.
I just want to make one last plea to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. If the government can require that all package labelling be in English and in French to give Canadians freedom of choice in that regard, is it too much to ask that the Government of Canada require that all retail goods carry both-for as long as the sectors in Canadian society believe they should be carried-


André Ouellet: Two years; that is what the industry said.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: -metric and imperial measurements without deadlines? The government should not impose deadlines on consumers.


André Ouellet: It is not us; it is the industry.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: I am asking the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to bring democracy to metrication in this country. If he will do that, and if he will agree to make metric far more voluntary than the government has done thus far, he will receive the blessings of many-


André Ouellet: It is not the government.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: -hundreds of thousands-if not millions-of Canadians. That is what we are requesting, and that is what I will continue to demand of this government.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I want to participate in this debate today and to try to bring a balance to the debate. The hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Scott), who has just finished speaking, told us he is not opposed to metric conversion but that he is opposed only to its implementation.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Compulsory.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Compulsory.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Read the motion.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: That is a little difficult to understand. I could accept that position if hon. members opposite would learn to express their point of view in somewhat less strident and divisive tones.
The hon. member talked about a forced march to metric. He knows, of course, that is not true.
May 14, 1982

We listened to the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) previously. The hon. member is noted for having a rather keen sense of humour and for using it quite frequently in the House, but he seemed to have forgotten his sense of humour today when he talked about jackboot tactics. If I am not mistaken, he even used the word "Nazi". I find that offensive, and I think any thinking Canadian would find it offensive. It is strange that hon. members can get up in this House and use terms like that, knowing they are false and knowing that no such situation exists in Canada. They know that they will not suffer and legal repercussions, so they make those statements. This certainly demonstrates how falacious the statements are.
The same hon. member, the hon. member for Red Deer, referred to the metric issue being a very large issue in the byelection in Olds-Didsbury, which is part of his federal riding of Red Deer. I am sorry the hon. member is not here at the moment because I would like to put a question to him directly. I wonder what he did in that campaign to set the issue straight. If Mr. Kessler was as dishonest with the electorate on matters metric as he was on the constitutional issue, the hon. member for Red Deer could have done a great deal in the service of this country by participating in that campaign and setting the record straight.
A considerable number of scare tactics were used in this debate but very little logic. For instance, the opposition tried to excuse its own betrayal of principle by spreading one canard after another. We have heard that there has been no debate of this issue in Parliament. In fact, there has been.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Not on forced metric.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: The implementation of the metric system in Canada was passed unanimously by Parliament. We have heard time and time again-and this is the principal stalking horse of the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm)-that we have forced metric. We do not have forced metric. Nothing has been legislated. Nothing has been ordered by order in council until particular sectors of the economy have asked the government to do so. That is an indication of the inaccuracy of some of the information-I will use the word because I know it is parliamentary-hon. members are putting out.
It has been said that Parliament was not consulted on conversion of retail scales, and that is not true. It has been said here that Australia has abandoned metric conversion, and that is not true. As a matter of fact, Australia proceeded originally to convert to metric by the method hon. members opposite advocate, the dual system. We had to go to a strictly metric system because it would take an interminable length of time to convert. They talked about the cost of the so-called conversion and about the fact that it should take longer. As has been the case in so many of their arguments, they contradict themselves. The longer it takes to convert to metric, the greater will be the cost. If we had converted to metric in 1871 when Sir. John A. Macdonald's government passed the first Weights and
Supply
Measures Act to make metric an official system of weight and measure in this country, we would not have as many problems as we have today. Any rational person knows that metric system makes more sense than the imperial system.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: That is not so.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: I wonder if the hon. member for Peterborough knows how many chains there are in a mile or how many square chains in an acre. That is part of the imperial system that he loves so much.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: I just told you.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: I am sorry, I did not hear.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: I said 5,280.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: That is the number of feet. I asked how many chains in a mile and how many square chains in an acre.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: How tall are you in metric?


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Slightly less than two metres.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect to hon. members, the usual form of debate should be observed.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: He does not even know how tall he is.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: I may not know exactly how tall I am in metric but I am tall enough to tell the truth. I wish hon. members opposite would learn to do the same.


Gerald Augustine Regan: You are asking for too much.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: 1 weigh about 65 kilograms, Mr. Speaker.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: It looks more like 85 to me!


Maurice Adrian Dionne: An hon. member opposite just shouted that it looks more like 85.1 think he is trying to judge me by his head. There has been just too much rhetoric connected with this issue, as with so many issues of late, Mr. Speaker. I do not know what purpose the opposition is trying to serve in confusing the issue-well, I do know, but I think it is a rather base purpose and will not serve the nation well.
The metric system has been legal in this country since 1871 as part of the first Weights and Measures Act. It was amended in 1971 by Parliament to specify the international system of units. That should answer the question of the hon. member for Red Deer who asked what metric system was being introduced. It is the International System of Units known as the SI system. This action followed a decision made in 1951 by the world's major trading partners, which form the General Conference on Weights and Measures, to adopt improvements to the metric

May 14, 1982
Supply
system. Recognizing the worldwide use of metric measurements, the modernized system was re-named the International System of units, or SI for short.
The policy that metric conversion was inevitable and in the national interest was established with the House leaders of all parties on January 16, 1970 speaking in support of the white paper on metric conversion in Canada. Those speeches were made in Parliament, Mr. Speaker.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: For voluntary metric.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: The white paper on metric conversion was developed in response to representations which had been pressed upon the government from widely diverse segments of the nation, such as the Consumers' Association of Canada, the Canadian Home and School Association, the Agricultural Institute of Canada, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce-and that is a pretty left-wing group-the Canadian Pharmaceutical Association and the Canadian Council of Professional Engineers.
These organizations were convinced and are convinced of the practical benefits to be derived from a system whose advantages range from simplifying the learning process in school to improving and consolidating Canada's competitive position in world trade.
There are over 100 voluntary sector committees with over 2,000 volunteer representatives from industry, labour, consumer and government bodies. Metric Commission Canada initiated the over-all strategy of involving every sector from every region of Canada as early as possible in planning for metric conversion. Does that sound very compulsory, Mr. Speaker?
Sector plans of industry, business and education are developed through a consensus process. Voluntary sector committees take responsibility for scheduling and monitoring the implementation of their plans. The voluntary participation approach is characterized by plans which are developed by those who will have to implement them. This helps to ensure that the benefits are achieved at minimal cost.
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, to delay and prolong the implementation of metric simply increases the cost. That is about the only thing it accomplishes, and that is negative.
A program of guideline dates for metric conversion recommended by Metric Commission Canada, after consulting with industry, labour and consumer groups, was approved by the government and debated in the House of Commons on March 17, 1975. The standing committee reported back to the House on December 17, 1976, with recommendations to adopt the program of guideline dates and to introduce additional legislation supporting metric conversion.
That bill was debated in the House, it went to committee and after eight months was reported back to the House with recommendations for legislation regarding the implementation of metric conversion, but still the opposition goes about the country saying it has never been debated in Parliament; that it is being forced down people's throats; that Parliament has not been consulted and therefore the people have not been consulted. That is a lot of nonsense, Mr. Speaker, and it is time they
stopped using that kind of scare tactic and started using logic. Surely hon. members opposite must have heard something before now about the necessity of elected representatives of the people providing leadership. Maybe it is time that some of them started providing a little of that leadership and began explaining the facts instead of exacerbating the situation and promoting the canards that they spread across the country about the metric system as well as many other aspects of government policy.
Out of a total of 94 sectors which have public conversion plans there are only three sectors for which regulations have been issued under the Weights and Measures Act. These regulations establish cutoff dates for the sale and advertising of goods in other than the metric SI system. Regulations were requested by the working group on scales in the retail food industry, by the home furnishing and piece goods industry, by the petroleum refiners and by the wholesale and gasoline service stations. These committees have consumer, industry and appropriate government representation on them. Proposals to make metric conversion mandatory in these three industries were initiated by the industries concerned and not by Metric Commission Canada. Where regulatory action has been requested, the industries cited were concerned about achieving an orderly conversion without unfair competition. Government action was requested to ensure that the ground rules for metric conversion are the same for all in the industry, thus reducing the possibility of consumer confusion to a minimum. The Consumers' Association of Canada approved this approach.
The working group on scales in the retail food industry comprises representatives of food retailing chains and independents, scales manufacturing and servicing enterprises, consumers and weights and measures regulating authorities. In 1977 it formally requested suitable regulations under the Weights and Measures Act to deal with advertising as well as the conversion of scales, which were deemed necessary for achieving a co-ordinated and orderly transition to metric units. I wish to emphasize the fact that the decision to support mandatory metric conversion in this sector was made by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) and the cabinet under the authority of the statute law on the recommendation of the food retailers in 1977, and with the full support of the Consumers' Association of Canada.
The information I have provided in my remarks so far, Mr. Speaker, indicates that the Canadian metric conversion program has followed a voluntary participation approach. Where legislation has been enacted and regulations used, it has been at the request of the interested parties.
I would also like to remind hon. members that this program is now in its tenth year and is approaching completion in many significant areas. Several sectors within the Metric Commission Canada framework have already identified to the commission that implementation of metric conversion in their industries is now substantially complete. Based on the 94 conversion
w.
if



May 14, 1982

plans currently published by Canadian business, industry, education, labour, farm, consumer and other sectors, about 80 per cent of these sectors expect to achieve their completion goals before December, 1984. In addition, the conversion of scales in retail food stores, which is the last major program to affect consumers, is now under way in the major urban centres across Canada. Consequently, I suggest this is not a time for seeking a review of our metric conversion policy. If we have a review now and change horses this late when we are almost to the other shore, what is it going to do to all of those industries which have already converted? The opposition is worrying about costs, yet they want us to turn the hands of the clock backwards. Sometimes I wonder how many of them over there have accepted the wrist watch yet.
The reason given for the introduction of the Weights and Measures Act in 1871 was:
It is expedient to legalize the use of the metric system of weights and measures for the promotion and extension of the internal as well as the foreign trade of Canada, and for the advancement of science.
One hundred years later, in January, 1970 the white paper on metric conversion in Canada stated:
Because of the vital importance of foreign trade to Canada, especially the need for growth in exports of manufactured goods, there must be serious concern about Canada's competitiveness in world markets as a result of the worldwide changeover to the metric system.
It went on to say that:
Since a trading nation must take account of the measurement and standards system of the buyer, the overwhelming world trend to the metric system is a powerful argument for Canadian conversion.
The government fully anticipated that adoption of the metric system would improve Canada's ability to penetrate world markets with manufactured goods, and that holds true today.
We heard about the United States, and the U.S. ambassador to Canada has a penchant for shooting off his mouth, saying that conversion to metric would hurt Canadian trade with the U.S.
I just want to close, Mr. Speaker, by saying that about 50 per cent of all exports to the U.S. today are in metric measure. Therefore, it has not hurt our exports, it is not likely to, and despite the reactionary regime in the U.S. at the moment, they too will convert to metric.


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to be able to say a few words on this subject. I am also delighted to see the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) here; I am aware he has stayed for pretty well the entire time of the debate. However, there is one thing he did not mention in his very kind offer to the people of Canada, so I will do it for him. Some few days ago the minister stated that he would be delighted to hear from all the people in Canada on metric and he would answer them all personally. I think the invitation still holds, and I hope those in favour will write to the minister as well. I also hope he will give us the results some weeks or months down the road.
Supply
There is one other thing which is very unusual, Mr. Speaker, and this is why I feel the minister is very concerned about this motion. The minister spoke for 35 minutes outlining his case. Being a very distinguished Member of Parliament and cabinet from the province of Quebec, it is the only time he never said one word in French. He was trying to get the message across to that part of Canada which is not so enthusiastic about this program. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am going to go a little further than the minister and say, "Bienvenue a mon collegue." So I have spoken more in French than the minister has.
The motion before us today, Mr. Speaker, is on a very specific issue, one which a great many Canadians feel is of singular importance, and I appreciate the privilege of being able to speak on their behalf. As an aside, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that in our Press Gallery today is a very distinguished former parliamentarian in the person of the former Leader of the Social Credit Party, Mr. Robert Thompson.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stan Darling: He is also a former Conservative MP. I would like to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps the truly significant aspect of the debate on this issue is the fact that the necessity for such debate reflects upon and embodies something absolutely fundamental to each and every issue debated in this chamber. I am referring to democracy, appropriately defined as government by the people, direct or representative. We on both sides of this chamber are here because we are part of democracy. The people of Canada elect us to represent their views and act in their interest. This is the way democracy works in Canada, or at least this is the way it is supposed to work. However, under this government, and increasingly evident during all debates in this House, government by the people-democracy-has all but been abandoned in many cases. The views of the people we represent and our capability to act in their interest have been swept aside and dismissed by the authoritative and arrogant attitude of the government. Our treasured form of democracy is being replaced by a form of tyranny, which is described as "a despotic and cruel exercise of power".
That this government is both despotic and cruel is something well known to the thousands of unemployed, homeless and hungry Canadians. Its despotic and cruel exercise of power has destroyed our economy. As I mentioned some time ago, the indifference of this government is such that, having shattered the economic base of the nation, its only response to victimized Canadians is that they must adjust to living amidst the rubble. Recently, and with increasing regularity, the victims of this tyranny are registering their refusal to adjust. As this becomes evident, Mr. Speaker, I feel it would be most appropriate at this time to quote the remarks of someone who obviously neglected to heed his own warnings:
The great lesson to draw from revolutions is not that they devour humanity, but rather that tyranny never fails to generate them.

May 14, 1982
Supply
The words I have just quoted were written in 1958. The author, 24 years later, has become universally viewed as a very despotic Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau). As the Prime Minister said, tyranny never fails to generate revolution. Among the many growing forms of protest we are witnessing against this government is one which involves the issue we debate today, namely, the mandatory conversion to metric measurement. Let me repeat that, "the mandatory conversion".
The motion before us bears repeating because it so clearly exemplifies the importance not only of the motion but of the debate itself. It is that the compulsory element in metrication should and must be abandoned as an affront to representative, parliamentary democracy.
To compel Canadians, to order them, to convert to the metric system or be punished is abhorrent and odious. When this tyrannical method of conversion is so obviously against the wishes of the majority of the people so compelled, it is indeed an affront to democracy.
There can be no doubt in the mind of the government that the majority of people in this country are against being forced into metric conversion. This government knows that various public opinion polls have impartially tabulated this opposition. Members on both sides of this House have received letters from constituents registering strong objection.
Just over a month ago, I and a number of my colleagues on this side of the House presented to the House a massive petition opposing the mandatory method of conversion, a petition bearing some 130,000 signatures. The names on this petition were collected for the most part in response to a mail-in poll conducted by the Sun newspapers in Toronto, Calgary and Edmonton. Canadians in three major centres of this nation took the time to express their disapproval in this way. Almost as significant as the fact that so many people felt strongly enough opposed to being forced into using metric that they participated in the poll is the fact they had to spend 30 cents on a stamp to reply. That means Michael Warren, the Postmaster General, and his post office gain to the tune of about $40,000. No one in this House need be reminded that the decision to raise our postal rates was not made by, nor even referred to, Parliament.
Let me repeat for the benefit of viewers and those listening and reading my remarks that when they write regarding postal matters to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs they can write to him free of postal charge. He will still have to spend his time opening and replying to those letters. The rise in postal rates is one glaring example of what this government has done to extract a considerable amount of money from the taxpayers much against their will. This rise in rates, like the compulsory nature of the switch to metric, was passed by a government order in council, both evidence of despotic and cruel exercise of power.
The government, in its devious attempts to confuse the issue with respect to parliamentary approval and input into the
switch to metric, cites, with glaring omissions, past approval of opposition parties. The government knows full well that what it is saying about this aspect of conversion and what really occurred are two completely different things.
Back in 1971 when the Progressive Conservative opposition agreed to support the government's white paper on metric conversion, our support was based, among others, on two main considerations. At that time it appeared that other nations, notably our major trading partners, were also going to convert to the system, and it made sense to keep in step with the times. The government, in its white paper, drew attention to this fact. At that time I had the privilege of speaking, not only inside but outside of the House on the subject. I said that I could see some merit in moving toward metric on the basis that our biggest trading partner, the United States, was going that way. I said that we should move at the same speed as the United States, and you know what that is now. We find in the white paper the following:
-because of the close ties between the United States and Canada in science, technology, industry and commerce, each country has a special interest in the course likely to be followed by the other in respect of metric conversion.
The government assured us that Canada would co-ordinate her conversion with that of the United States. From that I gather it meant at the same speed. Since then, as a result of strong public opposition, the United States has backed away from the process and is abolishing its Metric Board and placing the question of conversion under the aegis of the department of commerce to pursue voluntary conversion if desired.
Our other trading partners, Britain and Japan, have also either halted the conversion process or are reverting to the voluntary system, again as a result of strong opposition from the public. Only in Canada, what a pity-that reminds me of the tea ad we see on television when we hear "Only in Canada, you say. What a pity!"-do we have the spectre of people being fined or imprisoned if they do not comply. Only in Canada has tyranny replaced democracy.
The second major consideration which led to our support of the white paper was that one section of the paper stated:
No legislative action is contemplated which would make mandatory a general use of metric.
Would the government now have us believe that the order in council making metric conversion mandatory is "no legislative action"? That is yet another broken promise by a government which has perfected the process of saying one thing and then doing exactly the opposite. The government knows and has always known that Canadians are firmly opposed to mandatory metric conversion.
The first evidence of this arose in 1977 when western farmers and Members of Parliament forced the government to amend the metric conversion bill to enable grain producers to keep the acre as the major unit of land measurement. The bill was also amended to allow the natural gas industry to sell gas either in cubic feet, cubic metres or other forms of measurement depending on whether gas was sold by volume, mass or
May 14, 1982

energy units. At the time the fight was won a western newspaper noted that when it came to domestic usage, the retention of the imperial system of measurement "would hinder nobody except the Ottawa bureaucrats determined to hammer us all into neat moulds of conformism."
Another example of the problems faced by Canadians in dealing with metric conversion occurred the year after the farmers won their battle. The year 1978 was to be the primary conversion year in Canada for the construction industry. Problems surfaced almost as soon as the program began. Millions of homes in the country were built according to imperial measurement, and the maintenance and upkeep of these houses required supplies conforming to the same system. Manufacturers faced the cost of double production lines and suppliers faced the cost of stocking two inventories, one metric, the other imperial.
Thousands upon thousands of self-employed Canadians, carpenters, plumbers, carpet layers and the like faced horrendous costs to covert their tools, all because of the government's incomprehensible and unwavering march toward total metrication.
It was in October of that same year that the comptroller-general's report to the United States Congress was published. The report estimated that metric conversion would cost the United States about $100 billion and, after dealing at length with each aspect of a potential change-over, warned Americans that the metric system might not be that great a deal after all. Usually in Canada we hear it said that it would be one tenth of the cost. You can imagine what it would be. We have heard figures given by government spokesmen that it is just a few million dollars. The only great deal involved in the Canadian conversion program is the great deal of money that it will cost us. It will be astronomical. It will be extremely difficult to put any figure on it. This year's budget for the Canadian Metric Commission is $12 million, and of this amount $1.8 million will be spent on advertising. The total cost of the commission's budget, since it was formed in 1972, is now $50 million, and in all probability a good deal more than that is hidden in other estimates and in other departments.
But the Canadian government continues its quest, still holding firm to the belief that mandatory conversion is absolutely necessary because metric measurement is the greatest thing to have happened to improve our lives since the advent of sliced bread. That is probably why the government took its toughest stance on metric in the area of retail food sales.
Here, as well, Canadians are and will be paying through the nose because of the way the government approached the issue.
With conversion dates firm and fixed, retailers had no choice but to replace or adjust the more than 120,000 food scales in Canadian food stores, outlets both large and small.
The cost to the retailers has been accurately estimated to be between $2,000 and $8,000. Yet the minister in his remarks earlier today, stated that it was a few hundred dollars. What I
Supply
find equally ludicrous is the fact that 98 per cent of all new metric food scales in Canada are manufactured outside of Canada. Over one half billion dollars is being spent outside of Canada to implement a program that we do not even want here, or at least the majority do not want.
If our grocery vendors refuse to comply with the rules of the government's mandatory metric conversion program and decide that the unnecessary cost to them and the inconvenience and annoyance to their customers is not worth it, they can be fined up to $5,000 or jailed for up to two years. The minister did budge somewhat when he said that he might consider small retailers being exempt. We wonder just how small a retailer will have to be in order to be exempt.
This plan to punish retailers for non-compliance may be one of the reasons why the government proclaimed yet another order in council-the Emergency Measures Act. It might be planning to incarcerate grocery store owners in the civilian internment camps it plans to establish.


An hon. Member:: Come on, do not say that.


Stan Darling: Come on, it is there. It is very unlikely but it is there.
I might also remind the government that when our party was in office we recognized the folly of the retail sales program, and the minister then responsible for small business, the member for Durham-Northumberland (Mr. Lawrence), cancelled the order in council at the request of the retail food sector.
However, once again under this government, the metric juggernaut rolls blindly along. It is a government uncaring that the sacrifices being made by those in its path are forced to adopt the metric measurement and being ordered to comply. In a great many areas of our life metric has become a fait accompli but not because, as the government would have us believe, it is advantageous either to the individual or the nation.
Metric measurement of our gasoline has certainly not led to a lowering of prices. Metric measurement of highway speed limits has certainly not resulted in fewer accidents. Metric measurement of consumer products has certainly not expanded our overseas trade opportunities. Metric measurement of our environment has certainly not helped eliminate the menace of acid rain. Metric measurement of the tools of labour is certainly not stemming the tide of unemployment. Metric measurement of the distance from home plate to the outfield fence in Olympic Stadium has certainly not guaranteed Expo fans that the Montreal Expos will win the World Series. If the minister has ever seen that field on television, the distances are shown in huge numbers in metric and much smaller ones in feet. You need field glasses to see them.
Metric measurement of our meat and produce certainly will not save families money on their grocery bill. It is, rather, the opposite. Every time metric is used it seems that the goods that are purchased cost more.


André Ouellet: Oh, come on!
17470

May 14, 1982
Supply


Stan Darling: Just take a look. I will give an example to the hon. minister from Quebec. We used to buy maple syrup for $23 a gallon. With metric, all we get is four litres and it still costs $24 dollars.


Mr. Cousineau:: You buy it in the wrong place. I pay $18.


An hon. Member:: It is the biggest consumer rip-off in the history of the country.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted time has expired. He may continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


René Cousineau: Mr. Speaker, since we have only five minutes left, I think I will have the privilege of ending this debate. First, I would like to say in passing that if the member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) is paying $23 or $24 per gallon, he is not buying it at the right place, because I pay $18. So, better luck next year.
Substantially, what does the motion say, Mr. Speaker? The member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) is asking to abandon metrication forthwith. In fact, the position taken by the members opposite has become a real farce. I have never heard Progressive Conservative members give so many different opinions on a given subject. In any case, it was the same for Petro-Canada, the interest rates we are discussing currently and the Constitution. The metric system is no exception. What was their position in 1979? They favoured conversion to the metric system as soon as possible. The then Solicitor General and Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs was asked the following question by my colleague, the member for Timmins-Chapleau, and I quote:
I would like to ask the minister how he intends to ensure that metric conversion is completed, or does he intend to act on his own to dismantle the program?
He answered, and I quote:
Certainly not, Mr. Speaker. The government is still committed to the concept of metrication.
I also want to quote a question by the member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Pepin), which was reported in Hansard of
November 14, 1979, page 1302, and directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and I quote:
Therefore, I want to give him an opportunity to correct an impression that he gave yesterday when he is quoted as having said there is a possibility that there will be a postponement of the conversion to the metric system, planned for January 1-
And the then Minister of State responsible for Small Businesses and Industry answered, and I quote:
The fact is, the whole process has been handled very well by the members of the Metric Commission, who are engineers, who have been dealing with sectors of industry and associations, who have had time to sit down and study the various implications and problems involved.
Going back a little further, to March 1975 when they were the official opposition, my hon. colleague, the member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling), the Progressive Conservative whip, made an excellent speech. He spoke on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party, and I am referring to what was reported in Hansard on March 17, 1975, on page 4060, and I quote:
I am pleased to lead off this debate for the official opposition. I think 1 should say at the outset that we supported metric conversion when it was introduced by order in council and the white paper, and that is our position today: we still support it. Let me say again that we in the official opposition support the principle of metric conversion.
And the hon. member, who today is the Progressive Conservative Party whip, went on to say, and I quote:
-the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) when he was prime minister, had his ministers undertake studies in this field.
So I would ask the hon. members representing the Progressive Conservative Party to contradict the right hon. former member for Prince Albert.
The member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) said that he never voted on the issue. 1 would refer him to Hansard, June 16, 1977, page 1142, on the subject of Bill C-23, where it says that the member for Red Deer voted on that day on Bill C-23, introduced by this government.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being five o'clock, I must advise the House that debate on the motion is ended, pursuant to Standing Order 58(11). Therefore, the House stands adjourned until next Monday at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 5 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, May 17, 1982