Debates of the Senate (Hansard)
Debates of the Senate (Hansard)
2nd Session, 35th Parliament,
Volume 135, Issue 84
Wednesday, March 19, 1997
The Honourable Gildas L. Molgat, Speaker
- SENATOR'S STATEMENT
- ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
- QUESTION PERIOD
- ORDERS OF THE DAY
THE SENATE
Wednesday, March 19, 1997
The Senate met at 1:30 p.m., the Speaker in the Chair.
Prayers.
SENATOR'S STATEMEN)
Rules of the Senate
Extension of Time Limit on Speeches
Hon. Philippe Deane Gigantès: Honourable senators, with respect to my point of order, last night I had second thoughts - after a glass of red wine, which doctors and the vintners have convinced us is medicine. My second thoughts were therefore senatorially sober and, I assure you, nonpartisan.I said to myself, "Why should I care? Why should anyone care when, depending upon your political persuasion, a senator is being inaccurate, meretricious, boring, self-serving, incoherent, but also long-winded? Give the senator more time to lose for his party, whichever it is, the vote of the rare visitor in the gallery."
Has the thought ever crossed our collective minds that we are so little noticed because we say so little in so very many words - in fact, far too many? Consider our goodbye speeches: Do not read them, I implore you. It would take more than one glass of red wine to control your nausea. You know the ones I mean. They say, and I summarize, "Ah, how well I knew dear old Senator Blogs who is leaving us today to spend more time with his beloved wife or parakeet. How well I remember the occasion when, as a mere boy but already precociously brilliant, I did a brilliant thing and he was there standing by me, as well as those numerous occasions when I saved the nation. And Senator Blogs was there, applauding."
Of course there are exceptions, like the deliciously witty goodbye speech by Senator Murray when Senator MacEachen was leaving us. That was a feast. The rest of the time, the fare is so turgid that we either read books, write letters, or go to our offices to sleep unobserved, thus raising the anxiety level of our whip, who keeps counting for fear of not having 15 members, a quorum, in the chamber. It gives him a chance, however, to stop listening to the rhetorical fog and go trace his errant flock.
Senator Doyle, an old friend, has worried why I have been less frisky in the recent past. The answer is that Senate long-windedness has gotten to me. It has anaesthetized me.
Therefore, honourable senators, I say go right ahead and make your speeches lasting more than 15 minutes. I will sit in my chair hearing not you but the voice of my little grandson. He talks a blue streak, but he, at least, is beautifully new.
Visitors in the Gallery
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of a delegation of parliamentarians from Ireland. They are members of the Joint Committee on European Affairs. I would introduce to you first the chairman of the committee, a member of the Dáil, Mr. Michael Ferris.As there are other several other members of both the Senate and the Dáil, I would ask you to withhold your applause until I have introduced them all.
Accompanying Mr. Ferris is Senator Michael Calnan, Member of the Dáil David Andrews, Member of the Dáil Noel Davern, Senator Joe O'Toole, and Member of the Dáil John Browne.
Honourable Senators: Hear, hear!
The Hon. the Speaker: On behalf of the Senate, I welcome you.
(1340)
Canada Council for the Arts
Fortieth Anniversary
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, in March 1957, the Canada Council for the Arts was founded. The organization is financed through public funding and its mandate is to encourage and support professional artistic creation throughout Canada. Forty years later, the success of Canadian artists, both at home and around the world, bears glowing witness to the value of such an organization.[Translation]
Honourable senators, today I should like to salute the extraordinary artists who have come to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the Canada Council with us, and who are in our gallery, along with the board members. I would also call attention to the presence of Father Georges-Henri Lévesque, who was on the Massey commission responsible for the creation of the Canada Council, and who was the Council's first vice-president.
[English]
I should now like to introduce to you the artists who are here in our gallery for this occasion, and because they are numerous, please hold your applause until they are all introduced.
I would ask each of you to rise as I mention your name: Marie-Claire Blais, novelist and poet; Angèle Dubeau, violinist; Atom Egoyan, filmmaker; Celia Franca, founder of the National Ballet of Canada; Louise Marleau, comedienne; Guido Molinari, visual artist; Jon Kimura Parker, pianist; Jean-Pierre Perrault, dancer and choreographer; Al Purdy, poet; and Takao Tanabe, visual artist.
They are accompanied by the writer Mr. Roch Carrier, who is Director of the Canada Council for the Arts, and by Donna Scott, Chair of the Canada Council for the Arts.
We are pleased to welcome you to the Senate of Canada.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Foreign Affairs
Committee Authorized to Meet
During Sitting of the Senate
Hon. John B. Stewart: Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate and
notwithstanding rule 58(1)(a), I move:
That the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs have power to sit at 3:30 p.m. today, even though the Senate may then be sitting, and that rule 95(4) be suspended in relation thereto.
If honourable senators wish me to explain, I will be happy to say a word or two.
The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: Explain.
Senator Stewart: Honourable senators, in fulfilling its obligations under the resolution on the European Union passed by this house, the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs made a visit to various European capitals. One of those was Dublin. While there, we were received most hospitably, and, more important, we received direct and candid information. We had excellent dialogue with the members of the Dáil of the Republic of Ireland. We were all delighted, indeed surprised, by the fruitfulness of our visit to Dublin. On reflection, we ought not to have been surprised because there is such a long tradition of good relations between the people of Ireland and the people of Canada.
This afternoon, the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs will be meeting with the delegation from the Parliament of Ireland, the delegation introduced to us earlier this afternoon. That is why our committee requests permission to meet at 3:30 this afternoon even though the business of the house may yet be in progress.
Motion agreed to.
The Senate
Repeal of Certain Rules-Notice of Motion
Hon. Anne C. Cools: Honourable senators, pursuant to rule 57(1), I give notice that, two days hence, I shall move:That the Senate repeal rules 37(2), 37(3), 37(4), 37(5) and 44(5) of the Rules of the Senate.
Aboriginal Peoples
Notice of Motion to Authorize
Committee
to Extend Date of Final Report
Hon. Landon Pearson: Honourable senators, I give notice that on Thursday
next, March 20, 1997, I will move:
That, notwithstanding the Order of the Senate adopted on Wednesday, April 24, 1996, the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, which was authorized in accordance with rule 86(1)(q), to examine such issues as may arise from time to time relating to the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada be empowered to present its final report no later than December 15, 1997.
Goods and Services Tax
Removal of Tax from Reading
Materials-
Presentation of Petition
Hon. Consiglio Di Nino: Honourable senators, I have a petition which
reads as follows:
We, the undersigned, believe that the application of the 7 per cent GST to reading material is unfair and wrong.
Education and literacy are critical to the development of our country. A tax on reading is regressive and hampers Canada's development.
We urge the Senate to adopt Bill S-11, which would free reading of the burden of the GST.
They remind us of this quote from Prime Minister Jean Chrétien on September 19, 1992:
"Applying tax to books and periodicals discourages reading...the Liberal Party has passed a resolution calling for the removal of the GST on books and periodicals... and that I will do."
The petition is signed by 90 Canadians from British Columbia.
(1350)
Visitor in the Chamber
Lila Rodriguez-Roberts, Hansard
Reporter,
Parliament of Trinidad and Tobago
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I should like to draw your
attention to a new, temporary member of our staff, sitting at the first of the
reporters' tables. It is my pleasure to introduce to you Lila Rodriguez-Roberts,
who is a Hansard reporter with the Parliament of Trinidad and Tobago. She writes
with a Stenograph datawriter, as do our own reporters, and uses the same
software.
Ms Rodriguez-Roberts is visiting the Senate for a week to observe our real-time arrangements and the computer-aided transcription system, which we call the CAT system.
I welcome you to the Senate.
[Translation]
The Senate
Transparency of Budgets and Operating Expenses-Notice of Inquiry
Leave having been given to revert to Notices of Inquiry:Hon. Jean-Maurice Simard: Honourable senators, I give notice that, when the Senate comes back after the Easter recess, I will call the attention of the Senate to the matter of the transparency of the Senate's budgets and operating expenses. In particular, I shall be raising the matter of the public's right to information, the senators' accountability with respect to the budgets allocated to them, and the essential flexibility there must be in administering those budgets.
[English]
QUESTION PERIOD
Human Resources Development
Level of Youth Unemployment-Record
on Job Creation-
Government Position
Hon. Terry Stratton: Honourable senators, I should like to ask the Leader
of the Government in the Senate what the status is of my previous inquiries
regarding the rate of unemployment being stuck at 9.7 per cent and youth
unemployment holding at 17 per cent.
It is wonderful to read the Red Book in retrospect. When our side was in government, the Red Book nailed us on the fact that youth unemployment was at 18 per cent in 1993. Wonder of wonders, the figure is still stuck at around 17 per cent. The level of youth unemployment has not really changed in three and one-half years.
The Leader of the Government was to get back to me with an answer as to why we seem to be stuck at these unusually high rates when, in fact, the Liberals took us to task about exactly the same thing when we were the government. The government leader assured me that she would obtain a response to that question as quickly as she could.
Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I am sure my colleague will agree with me that one of the answers I told him I was seeking was with respect to his desire to have a comparison between the unemployment situation in Canada and that of the United States. I am still working on that answer.
With regard to the honourable senator's other question, I repeat the answer that I have given to him on a number of occasions, and to others in this house: there is no question that our unemployment figures are too high. However, there are reasons for that, including the recession that we experienced in the early 1990s, which caused enormous changes in our system, including the streamlining of businesses and firms, and the laying off of a great number of people.
Another factor is the technological revolution that we are currently undergoing in this country. Across this country we also have many firms with jobs to spare, and Canadians untrained to do the work. Representatives of literacy organizations are meeting today on Parliament Hill, and I hope many in this house will visit them in room 266. These groups point out that more than 40 per cent of Canada's adult population are having difficulty, to varying degrees, with basic literacy fundamentals, and this causes enormous problems in terms of jobs. Thus I would say to the Honourable Senator Stratton that there are many reasons why we are having difficulty with the job question.
The other side of the coin that I should like to draw to the honourable senator's attention is that seldom in recent memory has our economic situation been as promising as it is today. With our interest rates at the lowest ebb in 40 years and our mortgage rates down to a level unheard of in 30 years, business confidence in Canada is up enormously in the past year, and particularly in the last few months. Consumer confidence is on the rise. I could go on and on, honourable senators. Our housing market is starting to exhibit the kind of boom that we would like to see in Canada.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Where are the jobs?
Senator Fairbairn: Our trade, in particular with the United States, is well ahead of expectation. In fact, among our allies in the G-7 countries, Canada is in the most favoured economic position of all. All of this boom is working its way through our economy. In fact, just this week the prospects for jobs are considered to be very promising, by sources that are not government sources.
None of this is any solace to the 9.7 per cent of the population who are unemployed, but our task and priority is to address this sector. That is what the next election will be about.
Senator Stratton: I appreciate the government leader's laying out the litany of how well the economy is doing, particularly the fact that much of what she has mentioned was put forward by the previous government. I refer to free trade and the laying of the foundation for a good recovery. Still, if what the Liberals set out is there, where are the jobs? You campaigned on "jobs, jobs, jobs" in 1993, and where are they?
In addition, there are now a record number of bankruptcies in the country. The leader is telling me "Everything is good: Don't worry, be happy," and yet we have no jobs and a record number of bankruptcies. What is going on? Why are we experiencing this many bankruptcies?
Senator Fairbairn: If Senator Stratton had listened carefully to what I said, he would have heard that I am not suggesting by any means that everything is rosy. I am saying that we have a difficult, systemic problem in this country on the question of jobs in the new economy.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Who caused it?
Senator Fairbairn: My honourable friend's memory or recall has left him somewhat. It was my honourable friend and his party who campaigned on "jobs, jobs, jobs." We campaigned on jobs, growth and a balanced economy.
I also want to tell the honourable senator that, when he talks about the basis that was laid for the economic recovery that we are now able to bring forward to the Canadian people, I would remind him that when we came into power, the ground that was laid for us was a deficit of $42 billion that had grown year after year under my honourable friend's government. Since the honourable senator seems to want a statistical battle, the legacy with which we were left included an unemployment rate of 11.2 per cent.
My friend and his government did not lay the groundwork for a rosy picture; far from it. We have taken down the deficit year by year, and we have reached and exceeded our goals. We will have a balanced budget and we will be free of borrowing requirements by the next fiscal year. Our offering to the Canadian people will be one of accomplishment, expectation and hope.
My honourable friend cannot sustain an argument with respect to his government's laying the groundwork for economic recovery when he was part of that government, which handed us a $42-billion deficit.
(1400)
Senator Stratton: Honourable senators, that still does not explain the 9.7-per-cent unemployment rate nor the 17-per-cent youth unemployment rate. We have record bankruptcies, and we have just heard from the Canadian Council on Social Development that poor families are losing market share. The poor are losing out in our society. Why is the honourable senator trying to tell me that everything is right, and that everything will recover? How can she tell us this country is doing well?
Senator Fairbairn: Honourable senators, I must remind the honourable senator again that I am relating, as I must, a factual picture of the economic indicators in this country, which have achieved a very positive level and which will improve the situation as they work themselves through the economy. I am not telling Senator Stratton - or anyone in this house - that everything is rosy. I am not saying that everything is good. I am saying that we have some very tough problems and that we, as a government, are working on them. I am sure my honourable friends would have their own methods for dealing with these problems, but we are actually doing the job here.
Of course we are concerned about poverty in this country, about poor children and poor families and working mothers, and that is precisely why in our last two budgets we have enriched the Working Income Supplement under the national Child Tax Benefit and taken measures to give disabled people a bridge into the job market. We are responding in that way, honourable senators, because we are concerned about these problems.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Closing down hospitals.
Rescinding of Pre-election
Promises on
Child Care Funding-Government Position
Hon. Terry Stratton: Honourable senators, the honourable senator says
that her government is concerned about the poor and children, but what has
happened to the Red Book promises about looking after children? Where are all
the day care positions that the Liberals said, in the Red Book, would be created
once the deficit got down to 3 per cent of GDP? Why are you not creating day
care spaces?
Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, indeed, we have a promise in the Red Book which, to the sadness of many of us, has not been fulfilled. The promise with regard to day care was contingent upon provincial agreement. We were unable to get provincial agreement across this country on contributing to a suitable day care program.
One thing we have done, however - and my honourable friend should not shove it aside as being inconsequential - is reached agreement with the provinces of Canada on a national Child Tax Benefit, part of which will fund improvement in day care in the provinces.
Justice
Refusal of Minister to Pay Legal
Fees of
Former Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development-Request for Answer
Hon. Eric Arthur Berntson (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable
senators, I do not know whether this properly belongs in Question Period or
Delayed Answers to Oral Questions. I think it would fit into either one.
I am sure honourable senators will recall that, before the Christmas break, I addressed, I think on two occasions, a series of questions to the Leader of the Government in the Senate relative to the political decisions around the legal expenses of Mr. John Munro.
As I recall, at the time the Leader of the Government in the Senate displayed considerable sympathy for the issue and agreed to get some answers and to bring them back to the Senate. I remember distinctly indicating that I had another series of questions that would be based on the answers that I received, if and when I received them. I have been very patient, as is my nature. I wonder if the Leader of the Government in the Senate could give me any indication as to when those answers might be forthcoming?
Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I did indeed exhibit concern about this question. I indicated to the honourable senator that I wished to work my way through the issue. I am not yet prepared to bring forward answers. I hope that by the time we return from the Easter break I will have something for him. I am not promising answers until I have satisfied myself that I have made the necessary inquiries.
Senator Berntson: Honourable senators, we are now into March, almost April. It was before the Christmas break that I raised these questions. I know there is a process to follow. However, I cannot, for the life of me, see what is so complicated about this matter. I cannot, for the life of me, understand how it can possibly take this long.
Senator Fairbairn: Honourable senators, I am aware of the time that has elapsed. I am working on the issue and I have no further comment at this time.
Employment Insurance Fund
Allocation of Surplus-Possible
Reduction
in Premiums-Government Position
Hon. Jean-Maurice Simard: Honourable senators, I have a question for the
Leader of the Government in the Senate. It has to do with the Employment
Insurance Fund surplus.
The Liberal government has been creating a large paper surplus in the Employment Insurance Fund. What is the justification for continuing to increase the size of the surplus? Does the Liberal government expect a large increase in the number of claimants in the near future? Does the Liberal government anticipate that its policy will put tens of thousands of Canadians on the street looking for jobs that are not to be found? Can the government give us an indication of just how high it expects the unemployment rate to go under this Liberal government?
Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I will take most of the questions of the honourable senator as notice to get him a more precise answer than I could give him today.
Indeed, my honourable friend will know that for some period of time there was a deficit in the Employment Insurance account. There is now a surplus, and part of the reason for trying to maintain a positive balance in that fund is to have a cushion against economic times that would put us in a situation similar to the one we were in several years ago when the fund had a deficit.
We have been working on this problem, as the honourable senator will know. Perhaps we disagree as to methods. The government has been very concerned with those who are having difficulty in the workforce, and we have been trying to deal with the problems in the best possible way, the most positive way. We have passed legislation, and we now have active and well-funded measures in place to give people who have found themselves unemployed a better chance, through retraining and other active support measures, at regaining a position in the workforce.
I will certainly forward my honourable friend's full questions to my colleague the Minister of Human Resources Development to obtain further answers on some of the points raised.
Senator Simard: Honourable senators, I hope, as I am sure do all senators on both sides of the house, that I will get an answer soon, not in six months' time or a year's time. We are told we are on the eve of an election. I think Canadians would like to hear the plan of the Liberal government.
(1410)
Honourable senators, if the government believes that the unemployment rate will not soar in the near future, because that is what I deduce from the answer of the Leader of the Government and other explanations given by Mr. Martin, why is there not a more rapid movement to reduce the size of employment insurance premiums, and of the fund itself, to a more reasonable level? By the end of the 1998-99 fiscal year, the accumulated on-paper surplus will be $17 billion. Is this just a mechanism for the Minister of Finance to pad the public accounts in order to give the misguided impression that he has actually been doing something to reduce the deficit, when he has, in fact, been increasing government revenues on the backs of unemployed Canadians?
Senator Fairbairn: Honourable senators, I do not accept my honourable friend's comments on the motivation or motives of the Minister of Finance, whose first responsibility, as he has shown us, is to put our nation's finances in order so that we will be able to build the kind of programs and supports that my honourable friend, I think, would himself support.
As far as deductions are concerned, my honourable friend will recall that, when we came into government back in 1993, the premiums had been on an incline. We have systematically dropped them down by 10 cents in the last -
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Ten big cents!
Senator Simard: Only 10 cents?
Senator Fairbairn: It is amazing how quickly one forgets, but we came into government when premium rates were scheduled to rise to $3.30. We kept them down and systematically reduced them. Whenever the Minister of Finance feels that he is in a position to do so to a greater extent, he will do so. However, he is proceeding.
My friend shakes his head. I have to tell my honourable friend that the Minister of Finance has been keeping his word from the day he took on that position. He is systematically bringing our country's economy into balance. I would advise my honourable friend to take a good and cautious look at the kind of success that Mr. Martin has achieved.
Justice
Special Joint Committee on Custody
and Access-
Timetable for Implementation-Request for Answer
Hon. Mabel M. DeWare: Honourable senators, last week I had the
opportunity to ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate if she would
enquire of the Honourable Mr. Rock when he would appoint a special joint
committee to deal with the matter of custody and access, as set out in the
divorce bill. Again, I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate if she has
been able to speak to the minister about that matter.
Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I will be absolutely honest with my honourable friend. I have not. However, she has now reminded me, and I will do that, but I will not pretend that I have already carried out that mission.
Senator DeWare: Honourable senators, the reason I raise this issue again is that one of our witnesses, a Mrs. Forbister, called me on the weekend to remind me that she had called Mr. Rock's office and discussed this matter with him, because it was of great concern to her and to many of the witnesses who appeared before our committee. She was told by his staff that they knew nothing about a joint committee. I would appreciate it if the Leader of the Government would look into the matter.
Senator Fairbairn: Honourable senators, I find that quite unusual because, of course, the joint committee was part of the package, with which Mr. Rock himself was very much involved and of which he was supportive. When I answered my honourable friend directly, I know that my office had been in touch with his. I, personally, have not spoken to the minister. I will do that. However, there is no doubt at all that the joint committee was part of the agreement under which Bill C-41 moved through the Senate.
Amount of Legal Fees Owing by
Former Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development-
Request for Further Information
Hon. John G. Bryden: Honourable senators, my question is supplementary to
the question asked by Senator Berntson of the Leader of the Government in the
Senate. At the time of the discussion as to whether Mr. Munro's legal fees would
be paid, I had asked the Leader of the Government to provide information to the
chamber as to how much the bill was, and to whom it was to be paid. Since that
time, I have read in the press that the bill was about $445,000 or $495,000, and
that it was payable to Nelligan Power. Perhaps the honourable government leader
could verify the amounts and to whom they are payable?
Senator Berntson: At least we get more information out of the media than we do out of the government.
Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I am aware of the honourable senator's question, and I will pursue it.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Manganese-based Fuel Additives Bill
Consideration of Interim Report of Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources Committee-Motion to return report to committee-Debate Continued
On the Order:Resuming debate on the consideration of the sixth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources (Interim Report on Bill C-29, to regulate interprovincial trade in and the importation for commercial purposes of certain manganese-based substances), presented in the Senate on March 4, 1997;
And on the motion of the Honourable Senator Kinsella, seconded by the Honourable Senator Doyle, that the Interim Report concerning Bill C-29, to regulate interprovincial trade in and the importation for commercial purposes of certain manganese-based substances, be not now proceeded with but be returned to the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources with instructions to implement the recommendation found on page 40 of the Interim Report, to wit:
We recommend that the Royal Society of Canada undertake a thorough assessment of all information pertinent to Bill C-29 and report its findings back to the Committee at its earliest opportunity; and
That the Senate do not proceed with further consideration of Bill C-29 until after the Committee has tabled such findings in the Senate.-(Honourable Senator Taylor).
Hon. Nicholas W. Taylor: Honourable senators, we have heard much on Bill C-29, and amendments have been put forward to refer or suspend implementation until further tests are done on MMT.
Honourable senators, in speaking against this motion in amendment and asking the chamber not to adopt it, one must remember that manganese itself is not at issue here. It is not a case of whether manganese is poisonous. I happen to belong to the school of thought that would rather have them prove that it is not poisonous than prove that it is poisonous. As the 20th century rolls into the 21st century, we may find ourselves in a society where people introducing additives will have to prove that they are harmless rather than having us prove that they are harmful.
Nevertheless, that is not the issue today on manganese. What is at issue is whether manganese in the gasoline affects the on-board diagnostic machinery enough that the automobile owner cannot determine from that machinery whether or not the combustion system must be repaired. Let me go further: Enforcing emission levels may not be necessary, except today on the lower mainland of British Columbia, and probably California and many of the other G-7 countries. It would be quite in order to put on the market an automobile carrying a sign saying that it is okay to drive this car anywhere in Canada except on the lower mainland of B.C., and possibly Toronto and Montreal on smog days. We prefer to do it the other way round and say that automobile manufacturers have decided to make a car that will qualify in any of these polluted zones, rather than just make specific cars that will qualify.
The technical term for on-board diagnostics is OBD-II. When the bill was introduced into this chamber, I questioned both Senator Ghitter and Senator Kinsella as to from which years they were quoting data, because the OBD-II system is only on the most recent automobiles. The automobile manufacturers themselves have said that they will not warrant or guarantee this machinery if gas with manganese is used. This applies to cars made by Mercedes in Germany or to cars made here or in Japan.
(1420)
In fact, leading executives from Mercedes Benz and North American manufacturers, such as General Motors, Ford and Chrysler, as well as Japanese manufacturers, gave evidence before the committee that they do not think that their newest units will be able to function to the standard that we want to achieve in Canada and that they are trying to strive for with regard to emissions, if manganese is left in gasoline.
The other area that is frequently mentioned is the question of jobs lost if we must change refineries that have been using manganese additives. A manganese additive amounts to about eight milligrams per litre, so it is not a volume problem. You would get the same effect by using ethanol or alcohol, but it will amount to about 10 per cent of the gasoline. That is one of the reasons why the Alberta government changed its evidence before the committee and went from being against it, on the principle that it would hurt refining and interfere with interprovincial trade.
To learn that an Alberta premier wants to have more power is like learning that the banks charge interest. It is not unusual for provinces to oppose anything that would, in any way, interfere with or restrict them in putting up their own trade barriers. However, a country where the provinces could all put up their own trade barriers would not be much of a country.
The maritimes are worried about job losses. I can give two answers here. First, there is the evidence before the committee from the chief executive officers of all the refineries -, except Come By Chance, Newfoundland, - and all of them firmly denied that they would have to close any refinery because of the switch from manganese. That is a small wonder. Further examination by our committee revealed that nearly every refinery in Canada - there may be a couple of exceptions - is already producing manganese-free gas in order to export it to the U.S. It was not a question of suddenly turning from making apple sauce to making apple cider; they were already making it. They were already exporting manganese-free gasoline, so the idea that suddenly there would be job losses sweeping across the land if they switched to another type of manufacturer does not apply. Furthermore - and I address this in particular to the Honourable Senator Buchanan - if they must retool these plants in order to meet the larger markets that they might achieve, more jobs may be created.
An argument was made by one of the honourable senators opposite that the substitutes for MMT do not work. The agriculture community is happy to supply the ethanol substitute for MMT. After all, MMT raises the octane rating of gasoline, and it rates the oxygenates contained in gasoline, too. Ethanol will do the same. In Alberta, we make a substitute called MTBE. Approximately 100 per cent of it is exported to the U.S. to help raise their octane rating. Manganese is cheaper and they use manganese up here. If manganese were to disappear, MTBE could be substituted.
The other argument honourable senators will often hear is that the new additive will raise the cost of gasoline. Gasoline is very similar to whisky. The cost of producing it is cheap. When you buy it at the pump - the same way you buy whisky in a liquor store - it may cost up to three times the cost of the material, but that is due to government taxes. Even if we were to increase the price of gasoline by 10 per cent, that would mean a measly 1.5- or 2-cents-per-litre increase because gasoline only costs approximately 18 to 19 cents per litre to produce. The balance of the cost is in the form of taxation, which all governments faced when they found out some years ago that people were willing to pay a high tax in order to buy gasoline.
Increasing the price of gasoline will not be a major factor. In fact, even if it were as high as 10 per cent - and even the most pro-manganese user will not argue that it will be higher than 10 per cent - the variation would be smaller than you would pay on a long weekend in the summertime for a tank of gasoline. The price will vary by more than 2 cents a litre if you purchase that gasoline during a long weekend. However, as you return from your trip, you will notice that the extra 2-cent charge has been removed and the gas is selling at a cheaper rate.
The next issue that many have argued is the scientific proof. I hate to admit it, being an engineer myself, but engineers are similar to lawyers - and there are a lot in this chamber - they
will play the violin for whomever is paying for the tune. There is no such thing as a real, solid, engineering, scientific answer any more than there is a solid legal answer. There is a pro and a con, and it depends on the scientist and how much you can afford to pay for him, on either side, as to the evidence you receive.
Naturally, when the committee came up against manufacturers versus big oil companies, we were facing industries with very deep pocket books. We had PhDs back as far as the eye could see willing to swear opposite each other. There is no way that we could get any sort of technical run-down on manganese that we could decipher. For the Honourable Senator Kinsella, whose sincerity I appreciate, to think that we could have a definitive answer after a five- or six-month investigation by a bunch of scientists in the Royal Society of Canada on something that has not been worked out in the past 10 years is dreaming in technicolour.
There is no question that the testing has gone on for quite a while. Approximately seven or eight years ago, the automobile companies sat down with gasoline producers to try to work something out. They have never been able to do so. I am not so sure that I blame big oil and the Ethyl Corporation because it has been a financially rewarding business. There is nothing wrong with that. Free enterprise and profits make the world go around, but there must be a time when one must address whether or not it is worthwhile. One can almost use the argument that, if it is so harmless and it can be shown that it does not gum up the on-board diagnostic-II machines, then they could go ahead and run the tests themselves. I am sure that the Canadian people and the automobile companies are so understanding that, if a test proved that the U.S. and the other G-7 countries did not know what they were doing when they first banned manganese, they would leap at it. Somehow or other, everyone cannot be out of step but our Johnny. We are the only country in the G-7 that, to any large extent, uses manganese in gas. Some will allow it, as is the case in the U.S, but then the manufacturers will not stand behind their warranties.
Finally, I would refer to the two conclusions that led the committee, and certainly me as an engineer involved in the oil and gas business all my life, to recommend to the house that we vote this measure down. First, in the last 10 years, gasoline has changed very little. However, the automobile companies have reduced their emissions by 90 per cent. In other words, the automobile companies may be driven by the Ralph Naders of this world, who have done a lot to reduce emissions. There has been little change in the vapour point, et cetera. Nevertheless, maybe it is time now for big oil to carry some weight in cutting down the noxious emissions that we experience in the more crowded areas of our continent.
The second conclusion is motive. This is a Jesuit type of argument, which Senator Kinsella would appreciate. Why would the automobile industry care about manganese in gas unless it was gumming up their machinery? What do they have to gain? If anything, they will have egg on their faces if manganese is taken out of gas and the machinery still gums up. They are taking a tremendous chance.
The motive of Ethyl Corporation is clear; it is simply dollars and cents. I recommend that the Senate examine the motive and the past performance of the automobile industry. It is time for gasoline to be cleaned up. Therefore, I recommend to the Senate that we vote against this amendment.
Hon. John Buchanan: As the Honourable Senator Taylor may be aware, MMT is not used in California. The automobile industry has asked for a delay of certain provisions of their Clean Air Act because, even without MMT, the on-board diagnostic equipment is gumming up. Is the honourable senator aware of that?
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, the time period for Senator Taylor's speech has expired. Leave would therefore be required for him to respond. Is leave granted?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Taylor: I am aware that in California they are having trouble with the OBD-IIs, but it would be even worse if there were manganese in the gas. With no manganese in the gas, the OBD-IIs are giving problems in some areas, but it is a start. If there are problems with the OBD-IIs with manganese-free gas, putting manganese in the gas will not make the situation any better. It will be worse. It is a non-starter.
Senator Buchanan: Then why not vote to have the study and finalize the matter?
On motion of Senator Buchanan, debate adjourned.
Criminal Code
Bill to Amend-Report of Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee-Motion to return report to committee-Order Stands
On the Order:Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Carstairs, seconded by the Honourable Senator Losier-Cool, for the adoption of the sixteenth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs (Bill S-3, to amend the Criminal Code (plea bargaining)), presented in the Senate on November 7, 1996;
And on the motion of the Honourable Senator Cools, seconded by the Honourable Senator Robertson, that the Report be not now adopted but that it be referred back to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for further consideration.-(Honourable Senator Corbin).
Hon. Anne Cools: Honourable senators, this order currently stands in the name of the Honourable Senator Corbin, who took the adjournment last Wednesday, March 12, 1997. Perhaps we might have an indication from Senator Corbin as to when he intends to speak to this order. I am concerned that the session is rapidly coming to a close, and I believe that other senators wish to speak on this matter. It would be nice if the order could be dealt with.
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable Senator Cools, the Honourable Senator Corbin is not in his seat so he cannot reply. However, I can tell you that if anyone else wishes to speak, they can proceed, even though the matter is adjourned in the name of the Honourable Senator Corbin.
Senator Cools: Thank you.
Business of the Senate
Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Deputy Leader of the Government): Before I move the adjournment, I remind honourable senators that a number of committees are sitting this afternoon. I urge all honourable senators to be on time because there are important witnesses appearing.The Senate adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.