Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says, there is nothing wrong with giving an industry a leg up. That strikes at the heart of the bill. This bill has nothing to do with the environment; it is really an industry issue.
If the government wants to ban MMT just because it wants to ban it, then why does it not say so? If the object is to do that, then go ahead and do it. What annoys many of us is that this is being done under the pretence of an environmental clean up. That is the excuse which has been given. All that we can do is ban the cross-border traffic of MMT because there is no health reason to ban it. I wish the government would be honest and say that it decided to do it because it wants to do it. At least that would be honest if not prudent.
As an example, why is it that Ford and GM in their 1996 models make no mention at all about MMT or the effect it has on the onboard computers?
This has nothing to do with the environment. This has to do with a decision of the government to ban it for reasons known mostly to the Deputy Prime Minister. It is not a health issue. It is not an arsenic issue, the example which was used earlier. This is a decision of the government to do it for reasons other than the environment. It is really an industry issue. If the government wants to promote ethanol, as the hon. member mentioned, then the Minister of Industry could do that. I do not know why the Minister of the Environment is picking on this issue when it is not an environmental or health issue.