Mr. Speaker, I have always considered that in these questions the government is there to make decisions after it evaluates both sides of a story.
The feeling is that only the automobile industry's case has been studied but that is not correct. I have letters from the deputy minister. There are evaluations made by the Minister of the Environment completely, impartially and objectively, including the minister's commitment to the Ethyl Corporation to suggest to Ethyl not to go with legislation, that the minister would prefer to have a compromise on this issue between the two industrial groups concerned and suggesting and offering to Ethyl to produce one type of gasoline without MMT to let the consumers judge and compare.
That is fair. It is objective. It is impartial. It is a fact. I know the minister made this offer. I know that this offer was turned down because Ethyl Corporation today has a solid market with MMT that it does not want to give up. It is a monopoly.
If Canada turns down MMT, there would be no MMT sold anywhere around the world. That is a fact. As I said before, if it is so good for cars why is MMT not used in the fuels in all the countries that are just as sophisticated as we are? I find that very strange. I am convinced that the step we are taking today is a step forward for the environment.