Mr. Speaker, yes, I have read on both sides of the question. Yes, I know it is not a question that is totally black and white. Yes, I know that the makers of MMT can genuinely say that in some sectors it has advantages.
However, in all the decisions we make here nothing is exactly black or white. We have a choice. Of the two choices, one is the choice of a heavy metal with very serious potential health questions attached to it which many scientists have been flagging, as they did about lead. The same debate took place on lead. Should it be taken out of gasoline? Should it be left in because it is a very good octane enhancer? Today we would never go back. If we looked at the debates which took place I am sure there were two sides to the issue.
Eventually a choice has to be made. With me the choice is clear. On one side is a heavy metal which has potential health problems. It has been clearly demonstrated to gum up catalytic converters, which are the salvation of tomorrow with respect to the car of the future. I would like to find a way to move much faster in Canada toward other additives. It may be a bit more expensive in the beginning, but eventually we should look to other additives, just as the rest of the world is doing.
If MMT is so beneficial, why do not Scandinavia, a leader in the environmental field, the Netherlands, Germany or Japan use it?
For me the choice is very clear. In the balance of choices I have chosen to go with Bill C-94. It is the fastest way for us to use environmentally friendly fuels in Canada.