Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend from Athabasca initially made what one would consider a rather unwise accusation in his speech. He suggested the government was succumbing to big powers or big business or the shakers and movers in the country and so on.
I listened intently when he talked about the wisdom of continuing to use this American produced product and I wondered where he was getting his information and the kind of thing he was reading into the record.
The first of three questions is who is turning his crank? Who is cheering him on to stand up and deliver his own set of figures especially when a perfectly valid Canadian produced substitute is available?
No oil refiner would feel threatened in any way to be substituting an oxygenate like ETBE or ethanol or whatever for MMT. Some refineries are in the forefront of that change right now. He suggested refineries have been reporting they would have increased emissions. Did all refineries say that? Some refineries are a way out in front.
He referred to the pollutant nitrous oxide. NOx is the one pollutant whose quantity increases without the use of MMT or with the inclusion of an oxygenate, but it increases from what? What is the base line of the pollutant?
If the pollutant increase were 150 per cent it would still be incredibly small. How does that tiny increase in nitrous oxide emission compare with the decreases in all of the other emissions when one takes MMT out?
Maybe it is not fair to ask the hon. member to deliver statistics but I want to get on the record the fact that NOx, while it is an admitted pollutant, is not the big ticket item here. There are other things.
In terms of the minister's supporting the industry she has supported the petroleum industry very well and has been written up. Her support has been publicized.