Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question. I know he has been following this debate very seriously.
First I want to pick up his remark about lack of scientific evidence. His colleague, in the speech which preceded mine, referred to rigorous statistical analysis and phrases of that sort.
Members opposite know that an experiment based on the opinion of 27 million automobile owners is based on a very solid scientific foundation. How much better a foundation scientifically than 48 vehicles that have driven three million miles, which is approximately five million kilometres. On the scientific evidence side, I urge the member to bear in that in mind. We are talking here about manufacturers who have been monitoring hundreds of thousands of vehicles.
Going back to the member's remark and the Reform Party's point that the decision has been made in the United States, we know that the United States has a very legalistic system. All sorts of groups, particularly large corporations, can take advantage of the system to fight decisions they do not like.
I would remind members opposite that MMT is banned in the United States at present. We will see if it is going to come in. The great state of California, which is comparable in population and has more vehicles than our whole country, has enormous automobile problems. It has been trying to tackle them with many of the most stringent regulations in the world. The state of California has banned MMT.
If and when we see the state of California, which is progressive in this regard, acting the way the Reform Party expects then I think the member will have a stronger base to stand on.
In general, I do not think that Canadians should follow the lowest common denominator. We should aim for the highest standards and try to achieve them where we can. That is what we are doing in this case.