Mr. Speaker, I think the points made by the hon. member for Laurentides were very constructive and they are well taken. I agree these are important matters that must be dealt with.
After a lot of soul searching, we finally decided that Bill C-94 was the answer. There was a decisive factor. The United States is of course looking into the MMT issue, following a number of appeals filed by Ethyl Corporation. However, the EPA is dragging its feet. Until June 1994, the EPA administrator was fighting very hard, but in fact they keep asking for studies and health impact assessments.
The United States might reintroduce MMT and it would then become legal. It is quite possible, but meanwhile, it is up to us as Canadians to take the kind of action that may also influence our neighbours to the south.
Today, we are part of NAFTA. NAFTA includes Mexico, and I think that we have to make decisions on the basis of their intrinsic value. We think that today, Canada could add ethanol to gas. My colleague has done an extraordinary study of ethanol. Today, we have an ethanol industry in eastern Canada. We have one in western Canada. The United States, because of the legislation, is now getting involved in massive production of ethanol. I believe that they want 10 per cent of the oil industry to be ethanol-based by the year 2000.
It seems to me we should start making an effort to seek additives that are more environmentally sound. I realize there are arguments for and against MMT.
I think the weight of the evidence would support a new process: gas without MMT. What strikes me particularly is that none of the countries that enjoy an outstanding reputation for the quality of their environment-the Netherlands, Germany, Finland and the Scandinavian countries-none of them uses MMT.
If tomorrow morning one of these countries were to opt for MMT, I would think again. If the United States had opted for MMT because it was environmentally safe, I would reconsider. However, the EPA does not accept it because it wants to but because it was a legal decision. I think we should go ahead with C-94.