Metrication Canada; How is it working?

[dre]

Canada signed on to the plan....stupid is as stupid does. "Metric" nations lost the war.

You arent seriously trying to suggest that adopting the metric system was stupid are you?

[bush_cheney2004]

You arent seriously trying to suggest that adopting the metric system was stupid are you?

No, I am saying that the decision to stay with imperial units was officially joined by Canada post WW2. It's not Boeing's fault that Air Canada employees screwed up the fuel weight conversion in 1983 (Gimli Glider). Is that stupid too?

[Sa'adoni]

Sears is american it doesn't count.

Mattresses are sold in Canada using standard sizes as expressed in inches:

1. # 76" W x 79 1/2" L - King

2. # 59" W x 79 1/2" L - Queen

3. # 53" W x 79 1/2 " L - Double XL

4. # 53" W x 74 1/2" L - Double

5. # 48" W x 74 1/2" L - 3/4

6. # 39" W x 79 1/2" L - Twin XL

7. # 39" W x 74 1/2" L - Twin

8. # 36" W x 74 1/2" L - Single

9. # 30" W x 74 1/2 " L - Cot

http://www.sears.ca/content/resource-centre/buying-guides/how-to-measure/mattresses

[Sa'adoni]

http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa/labeti/guide/ch2e.shtml#a2_6

2.6.2 Canadian Units of Measure [17, CPLR]

Although Canadian (previously named "Imperial") units of measure are not required on labels, they are permitted to be used in addition to the required metric units. When the net quantity is shown in both metric units and Canadian units, the metric units should be declared first and the two must be grouped together on the label with no intervening material.

The Canadian units "fluid ounces" and "ounces" are not interchangeable terms. For example, fluids such as juices and soft drinks must always be described as "fluid ounces" rather than "ounces". The following conversions may be used:

1 fl oz Canadian = 28.413 ml

1 oz = 28.350 g

2.6.3 Canadian versus U.S. Measure

U.S. (American) units of measure may also be used on labels provided an appropriate and accurate metric net quantity is declared. The U.S. fluid ounce is slightly larger than the Canadian fluid ounce and, if shown, does not need to be identified as "U.S.".

The following conversion factors may be used:

1fl oz U.S. = 1.041 fl oz Canadian = 29.574 ml

U.S. fluid measures, other than the U.S. fluid ounce, are smaller than Canadian measures and must be identified as "U.S." on the label. Non metric declarations (e.g., fluid ounces, pounds, quarts, etc.), if shown, may be in English or French.

Edited February 28, 2012 by Sa'adoni

[bush_cheney2004]

Sears is american it doesn't count.

Well then...what isn't "American"? Those 1" x 3" x 5 oz. hockey pucks were being made in Canada!

[Sa'adoni]

Well then...what isn't "American"? Those 1" x 3" x 5 oz. hockey pucks were being made in Canada!

Obviously though they were being sold in the US. --- the gap however is marketing allowance vs. in store sales.. it is product marking.. the marketing aspect is being contravened.

Sports which have been around for longer than metric or when the "Canadian" system was being used likely have updated their rules.

Lables in Canada are required to show both inches and cms, it is likely americans or old folks that are making the error in only listing inches - technically the product can't be sold without metrics on the packaging as far as I'm aware.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/W-6/

The Weights and Measures Act mandates that the metric system of measurement is the primary system of measurement in Canada. While a metric declaration of measure is required, in most cases it is also possible to have a non-metric declaration in appropriate form.

USE OF UNITS OF MEASUREMENT

Use of units of measurement

7. No person shall, in trade, use or provide for the use of a unit of measurement unless

(a) that unit of measurement is set out and defined in Schedule I or II; or

( the use of that unit of measurement is authorized by the regulations.

1970-71-72, c. 36, s. 7.

SEIZURE AND DETENTION

Seizure

39. (1) Where an inspector believes on reasonable grounds that any provision of this Act or the regulations has been contravened, the inspector may seize and detain any device, commodity or packaging and labelling material by means of or in relation to which the inspector believes on reasonable grounds the contravention occurred.

Examination and samples of seized articles

(2) Where an inspector has seized and detained any device, commodity or other thing pursuant to subsection (1), the inspector shall, at the request of the person from whom the device, commodity or other thing was seized, allow that person or any person authorized by that person to examine the device, commodity or other thing so seized and, where practicable, furnish that person with a sample thereof.

Detention

(3) Any device, commodity or other thing seized pursuant to subsection (1) shall not be detained

(a) after the provisions of this Act or any regulations that are applicable to the device, commodity or other thing have, in the opinion of an inspector, been complied with; or

( after the expiration of sixty days from the day of seizure, unless before that time

(i) the device, commodity or other thing has been forfeited pursuant to section 41,

(ii) proceedings have been instituted in respect of the contravention in relation to which the device, commodity or other thing was seized, in which event the device, commodity or other thing may be detained until the proceedings are finally concluded, or

(iii) notice of an application for an order extending the time during which the device, commodity or other thing may be detained has been served in accordance with section 40.

OFFENCES AND PUNISHMENT

Prohibited use of devices

23. Every trader is guilty of an offence who uses a device in trade for any purpose or in any manner that is prohibited

(a) in the certificate of inspection issued at the time of the most recent inspection made under this Act; or

( in the approval of that device pursuant to section 3.

1970-71-72, c. 36, s. 23.

Non-compliance with regulations by trader

24. Every trader is guilty of an offence who uses, or has in his possession for use, in trade, any device that

(a) is not installed in accordance with the requirements of the regulations; or

( does not measure units of measurement within the limits of error prescribed.

1970-71-72, c. 36, s. 24.

Marking or certifying without inspection

26. (1) Every dealer is guilty of an offence who sells or otherwise disposes of, or leases, any device that

(a) has not been marked as prescribed;

( in the case of a static measure, is not of a class, type or design that has been approved for use in trade pursuant to section 3; or

© in the case of a device other than a static measure, has not been inspected in the manner and circumstances prescribed.

Importation of devices

(2) Every dealer or trader who in the course of the business of that dealer or trader imports into Canada any device, other than a static measure, without notifying the Minister as prescribed is guilty of an offence.

R.S., 1985, c. W-6, s. 26; 2011, c. 21, s. 158.

Previous Version

-0000000000000000000000000000

Product advertising and marketing claims are primarily regulated by the Competition Act (Canada), which has a dual civil and criminal track for advertising matters. The Competition Act includes a general prohibition against making any false or misleading representation to the public for the purpose of promoting a business interest. This is a criminal offence if done deliberately or recklessly. If the representation is not made deliberately or recklessly, the Competition Act provides for civil sanctions including cease and desist orders, mandatory publication of information notices and administrative monetary penalties. Under both the criminal and civil tracks, it is important to note that it is not necessary to establish that any person was actually deceived or misled by the advertising, just that it could be construed as such. Amendments to the Competition Act as of March 12, 2009, Maximum civil penalties are now C$15-millionfor a second order against a corporation. A provision was also added permitting orders that would require advertisers who engage in misleading advertising to disgorge the proceeds to persons to whom the products were sold (excluding retailers, wholesalers and distributors that have resold the products). The amendments make sending false or misleading representations in the sender information or subject matter information of an electronic message and making false or misleading representations

Edited February 28, 2012 by Sa'adoni

[bush_cheney2004]

Obviously though they were being sold in the US. --- the gap however is marketing allowance vs. in store sales.. it is product marking.. the marketing aspect is being contravened.

Nope....that plant made pucks for Canadian markets too. Still, it is obvious that many parts of Canadian industry has not converted to metric.

Sports which have been around for longer than metric or when the "Canadian" system was being used likely have updated their rules.

Go tell the CFL all about metric "yards".

Lables in Canada are required to show both inches and cms, it is likely americans or old folks that are making the error in only listing inches - technically the product can't be sold without metrics on the packaging as far as I'm aware.

It's been that way in the United States since 1992. No big deal.

[Sa'adoni]

Nope....that plant made pucks for Canadian markets too. Still, it is obvious that many parts of Canadian industry has not converted to metric.

Go tell the CFL all about metric "yards".

It's been that way in the United States since 1992. No big deal.

only $15 million on a second offence, they must be making more than 15 million selling the pucks right.. it would be unfortuante if someone thought that it was cm's on there and not inches and bought the puck only to find out it was much larger.

The nature of the internet directly seems to contravene the competititon act though.

companies sending advertising content to canadians could be subject to millions and millions of dollars in fines.

Edited February 28, 2012 by Sa'adoni

[Tilter]

Feet and Pounds.. I've never heard any Canadian say they are 220 CM or measure their weight by KG

it just doesn't happen

only if they are filling out paper work for hospitals and stuff do you get KG or CM

no--- listen to the people 30 & under. They look puzzled if you say 200 lbs or a pound of butter--- because that isn't what they were taught in school.

About the only thing that remains is MPH ---they understand that because of the American influence HOWEVER

if you ask a 30 year old what "mileage" they get with their car they usually say something like --- they get 500 kilometres on a tank of gas-- which could mean anything-- seeing as how they have to know how many gallons or liters the tank holds.

The Americans are slowly becoming Metrificated--- the armed services, medical & scientific communities are all solidly metric maybe because they are mostly young. If a person would try to figure out a trip to the moon & used foot miles as a basis of calculation the computers would go nuts (unless of course the computer knew the length of King Henry's big toe in both inches & centimetres.)

Edited February 28, 2012 by Tilter

[bush_cheney2004]

only $15 million on a second offence, they must be making more than 15 million selling the pucks right.. it would be unfortuante if someone thought that it was cm's on there and not inches and bought the puck only to find out it was much larger.

I guess...I don't buy hockey pucks. One of the reasons "metrication" has failed in Canada is not just US markets....it was imposed by the government.

[bush_cheney2004]

no--- listen to the people 30 & under. They look puzzled if you say 200 lbs or a pound of butter--- because that isn't what they were taught in school.

Not buying it....even 30 and under do not routinely know their height and weight in SI units.

The Americans are slowly becoming Metrificated--- the armed services, medical & scientific communities are all solidly metric maybe because they are mostly young.

American schools have taught SI units since the 1970's. You can't pass chemistry or physics without it.

If a person would try to figure out a trip to the moon & used foot miles as a basis of calculation the computers would go nuts (unless of course the computer knew the length of King Henry's big toe in both inches & centimetres.)

Apollo Program (landed on the moon....)

With respect to units, the LGC was eclectic. Inside the computer we used metric units, at least in the case of powered-flight navigation and guidance. At the operational level NASA, and especially the astronauts, preferred English units. This meant that before being displayed, altitude and altitude-rate (for example) were calculated from the metric state vector maintained by navigation, and then were converted to feet and ft/sec. It would have felt weird to speak of spacecraft altitude in meters, and both thrust and mass were commonly expressed in pounds.

Edited February 28, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[bush_cheney2004]

Stats Canada still provided height and weight charts in imperial units:

Table 1 Weight ranges for underweight, normal weight, overweight and obese for selected heights
Height 	Underweight* 	        Normal weight 	        Overweight* 	        Obese**
5’4” 	less than 107.5 lb 	107.6 to 145.2 lb 	145.3 to 174.3 lb 	174.4 lbs or more
5’8” 	less than 121.3 lb 	121.4 to 164.0 lb 	164.1 to 196.8 lb 	196.9 lbs or more
6’0” 	less than 136.0 lb 	136.1 to 183.8 lb 	183.9 to 220.6 lb 	220.7 lbs or more

[waldo]

and while Canada's conversion continues, partially completed, 3 countries remain somewhat entrenched in... 400 years ago: United States, Myanmar & Liberia - oh, wait... this just in, Myanmar is switching!

CIA Factbook: At this time, only three countries - Burma, Liberia, and the US - have not adopted the International System of Units (SI, or metric system) as their official system of weights and measures.

The US is the only industrialized nation that does not mainly use the metric system in its commercial and standards activities, but there is increasing acceptance in science, medicine, government, and many sectors of industry

for my part, again, my quote was a direct extract from your countries CIA factbook... ask yourself why you took such exception to it. You may also want to ask what preceded my quote... you know, the ridiculous clown show, BC2004 brazillion post display.

Who are you kidding....without American alphabet soup facts you wouldn't have anything to say at all...about anything.

and your clown show continues! Keep the faith... perhaps you and your Liberian colonial base camp can pull the rest of the world out of its metric tailspin.

[waldo]

Stats Canada still provided height and weight charts in imperial units:

Table 1 Weight ranges for underweight, normal weight, overweight and obese for selected heights
Height 	Underweight* 	        Normal weight 	        Overweight* 	        Obese**
5’4” 	less than 107.5 lb 	107.6 to 145.2 lb 	145.3 to 174.3 lb 	174.4 lbs or more
5’8” 	less than 121.3 lb 	121.4 to 164.0 lb 	164.1 to 196.8 lb 	196.9 lbs or more
6’0” 	less than 136.0 lb 	136.1 to 183.8 lb 	183.9 to 220.6 lb 	220.7 lbs or more

yup, as a part of a Health Fact Sheet... right next to a like table of metric equivalencies. In any case, the tables associate to, "Overweight and obese adults". You know, we talked all about that most serious problem in the MLW American obesity epidemic thread

[-TSS-]

I got the impression that the original poster was of the impression that Canada has recently switched to metric; in fact we've been metric for decades. A lot of us on the forum are not old enough to know what it was like before metric.

No, not really, I know that Canada didn't switch to the metric system yesterday or last year but some time ago. I know that Australia and New Zealand went metric in 1971, probably Canada changed around the same time.

The thing which makes me wonder is that as children are probably no longer taught the obsolete units at school the system still persists in people's way of thinking and every day speech. Obviously if you have been an adult already when the system was brought in it is very unlikely that you learn out of it but people born after 1971 are already the majority of the population.

[bush_cheney2004]

and your clown show continues! Keep the faith...

I always do...it must be disturbing to you that so much of the American data you rely on started life in Imperial units!

So what is a climate change extremist to do?

[waldo]

I thought someone in this thread already schooled you, big time, about U.S. scientific metrication... in any case, keep the faith - wiki/google are your friends in extending upon your clown show.

[bush_cheney2004]

I thought someone in this thread already schooled you, big time, about U.S. scientific metrication... in any case, keep the faith - wiki/google are your friends in extending upon your clown show.

That's OK...Wiki and Google are American too! Did I ever mention that before?

[cybercoma]

I thought someone in this thread already schooled you, big time, about U.S. scientific metrication... in any case, keep the faith - wiki/google are your friends in extending upon your clown show.

waldo, bless your heart, my friend. You need to stop replying to the trolls.

[dre]

thou (th)

1⁄12000

0.0254

0.000 025 4

25.4 μm

inch (in)

1000 thou

1⁄12

25.4

0.025 4

foot (ft)

12 inches

1

304.8

0.3048

yard (yd)

3 feet

3

914.4

0.9144

Defined as exactly 0.9144 metres since 1959

chain (ch)

22 yards

66

20116.8

20.1168

furlong (fur)

10 chains

660

201.168

mile (mi)

8 furlongs

5,280

1,609.344

league (lea)

3 miles

15,840

4,828.032

No longer an official unit in any nation.

Maritime units

fathom (ftm)

~2 yards

6.08 or 6[3]

1,853.184

1.853184

cable

100 fathoms

608

185.3184

One tenth of a nautical mile. When in use it was approximated colloquially as 100 fathoms.

nautical mile

10 cables

6,080

1,853.184

link

7.92 inches

66⁄100

201.168

0.201168

1⁄100 of a chain

rod

25 links

66⁄4

5,029.2

5.0292

The rod is also called pole or perch.

chain

4 rods

66

20.1168

1⁄10 of a furlong

LOL @ Imperial Units

[bush_cheney2004]

waldo, bless your heart, my friend. You need to stop replying to the trolls.

He can't help it...and neither can you. I wonder if trolls have gone metric?

[waldo]

waldo, bless your heart, my friend. You need to stop replying to the trolls.

but as a lil' diversion, watching him dance is sweet... it's gold, real gold!

[bush_cheney2004]

but as a lil' diversion, watching him dance is sweet... it's gold, real gold!

Gold...today's price...per OUNCE!

Gold Apr 12 (GCJ12.CMX) -COMEX

1,789.50 Up 14.60(0.82%) 1:05PM EST

[waldo]

Gold...today's price...per OUNCE!

Gold Apr 12 (GCJ12.CMX) -COMEX

1,789.50 Up 14.60(0.82%) 1:05PM EST

sweeterrrrr! Reading you laugh at yourself!

by the way, how many pennyweights in your per ounce price... how many grains?

[dre]

sweeterrrrr! Reading you laugh at yourself!

by the way, how many pennyweights in your per ounce price... how many grains?

It will take some time for him to get back to you on that. He needs to go get his scale, but its a few furlongs away. A "furlong" being ten "chains" of course, and each "chain" is 4 "rods".