>From the Toronto Star a couple days ago. I'm sure you'll have to fix the link.
Nat http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/A rticle_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1076800208593 Feb. 15, 2004. 01:00 AM It's still all metric to us Thirty years after Canada's conversion confusion began, we still haven't fully embraced the system With speeds posted in kilomet JOSEPH HALL FEATURE WRITER We took the inch, but generally gave up on the mile. It was 30 years ago that the first metric measurements squeezed their way into Canadian households - on toothpaste tubes. And since 1974, the country has devolved into a mishmash of measurements where imperial inches and pounds are still commonly used to measure a person's height and weight, but the kilometre is king of the road. "There are three systems of measurement at play in Canada," says John Parkyn, president of the Canadian Metric Association. "There's the metric system, the imperial system and there's a hybrid. "And depending what sector you're dealing with, or what building you go into, or what product you're purchasing, you could be faced with metric, imperial or you could be dabbling with both." A drive down almost any main street in the country will show the lengths and breadths that this measurement confusion has reached in Canada. Speeds will be posted in kilometres an hour and the service station will be selling gas by the litre. But the fruit market is likely to have apples by the pound and the fabric shop advertises its bolts by the classic yard. And the tailor shop? Waists and inseams are cut strictly in inches. Now, turn on the radio. The forecaster will almost certainly give out temperatures in Celsius and rainfall in millimetres. But the sportscasters will rave about that 40-yard touchdown pass, the 210-pound heavyweight or that 95-mile-an-hour fastball. Further on, you may pass by the new subdivision, and its "spectacular 40-foot lots.'' The development is being built with two-by-four-inch lumber on the site of an old 40-hectare farm. Stop at a convenience store and you might pick up a litre of milk. Stop at a bar and you'll get a pint of beer. "There's nowhere else in the world, with the possible exception of Britain, where things are this confusing," says metric enthusiast Greg Peterson, who runs the ``One Metre'' Web site out of Saskatoon (members.shaw.ca/gw.peterson/metric.html). "It's totally mixed up." Canada's conversion to the metric rule began with a bang in the early 1970s under the internationalist policies of Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, who hoped to bring the country's measurement systems in line with those of almost every other country in the world. "Canada was beginning to trade more readily with countries beyond North America - countries in Europe, countries in Asia," says Peterson. "And for over 100 years, many of those countries had been using the metric system." Even the United States had been making noises about shifting to metric in the late 1960s, giving Canada even more impetus to make the change, Peterson says. As well, the metric system made far more sense than its imperial rival. With all its base measurements being divisible by 10, for example, the system had a lot more intellectual appeal than the arbitrary - even nonsensical - imperial calibrations. Faced, however, with partisan political opposition, commercial connivances, a change of heart by the Americans and a stubborn imperialist streak among Canadians, metric's early advances here quickly stalled. The country has been left with the current measurement standoff that many think may prove permanent. "People, especially in government, seem content to leave it as is," says Peterson. "They're content to let the marketplace set the rate of change and the marketplace is quite happy having a little bit of confusion in there because they can take advantage of the situation." Peterson says he believes the biggest blow to metric was political and came with the election of Brian Mulroney's Tory government in 1984. "In order to win votes, the government backed off on enforcing a lot of the metric policies. "They wanted to make some of the consumers who weren't familiar with the system at that point more comfortable that metric would only come around slowly. "And that's why we're stuck with this." During the early 1970s, metric was being vigorously ushered into Canadian life by more than 100 working groups, under the auspices of a federal commission. These groups advised their specific trade sectors on the best way to make the transition to the metric system, which has actually been legally recognized in Canada since 1871. However, these transitions were meant to be voluntary, with just three important exceptions, says Doug Hutchinson, a program manager with the federal weights and measures department. Gasoline and diesel sales, non-packaged food and retail home furnishings were the only mandatory metric items, says Hutchison. Even speed signs on roads and highways were only changed through voluntary action from the provinces. In 1983, the departing Liberal government placed a moratorium on the gas, food and furniture regulations after a disgruntled gas bar owner, apparently attached to his gallon signs, launched a court challenge. Those temporary measures, which remain in effect to this day, fit in just fine with the arriving Mulroney regime, says the Canadian Metric Association's Parkyn. The sole metric regulation left standing from Trudeau's heady metric days was a 1976 law that requires all prepackaged foods to bear metric weights or volumes. As well, all food sold in Canada must have some form of metric-based pricing attached to it, even if it's only in the small print. But why did certain measurements make the transition to metric while others stayed stubbornly imperial? There are many reasons, experts say. One is the omnipresence of imperial-based U.S. culture in Canadian life, says Peterson, a research technician. The United States gave up on its metric conversion just as Canada was beginning its transition. And now, "we see it in American television, in American publications. " We hear it on American radio,'' says Peterson. "Even if Canadian producers want to produce a television show, more often than not they'll use imperial units in the script so they can sell it more readily in the United States." Many long-standing imperial ideals still remain. "For example, there's the 6-foot benchmark which men seem to shoot for. ... And somehow 183 centimetres doesn't translate as well," says Peterson, who stands at 173 centimetres. Shifting and often indifferent government policies toward metric have also led to our confused calibrations. While federal and provincial authorities took it upon themselves to implement metric measurements in some sectorseverything else was left to industry to phase in conversions as they saw fit. Left to their own devices, most chose the measurement system that was most beneficial to their bottom line, says Peterson. ``Look at supermarkets. They'll advertise their produce by the pound because it's better for their business. ``They look at it and say, `Hey, I'd rather advertise my apples at 99 cents a pound than $2.18 a kilogram.''' Gas stations, on the other hand, opted universally for litres. "They'd rather advertise gas at 75 cents a litre than at $2 a gallon," says Peterson. In some cases, the metric system was gradually introduced. In other cases, it arrived with an unexpected bang. "When you look at the highways, when you look at temperature, everything was converted completely over to metrics in one blow," says Peterson. "There was no question about it. There was no gradual phase-in period. ``Over one Labour Day weekend (in 1977), for instance, it was miles-an-hour on the highway and come the Monday it was kilometres." The same thing went for temperatures, Peterson says, with Environment Canada moving to metric in one fell swoop on April 1, 1975. "So that was all people saw. And people didn't want to take the trouble to do the mental calculations to get it back to imperial," Peterson says. "That's why those types of measurements have stuck." One place where the metric system has definitely stuck is in Canadian schools, where most boards teach it almost exclusively. The Toronto District School Board, for example, offers only a couple of practical, employment-oriented courses in which imperial units are taught, says the co-ordinator of mathematics and numeracy. Yet even though its metrics-only policy has been in place since before he joined the board 18 years ago, Stewart Craven says some teachers may introduce children to real-world imperial measurements. He readily admits that children are leaving school with a fair knowledge of both systems. "But that's a cultural thing, is it not?" he asks. "They hear their parents speak in feet and inches and they pick up on that, too." However, while today's children may still measure their heights imperially, they are likely more comfortable with the metric system than their parents. "If you talk to Grade 3 kids, they actually have a pretty good sense what a metre is and certainly what a centimetre is and so on," says Craven. "I'd say they are bilingual in measurements. They're fairly comfortable in either unit by the time they graduate." Additional articles by Joseph Hall
