Mr. Speaker, this is clearly not an environmental bill. MMT has proven not to be deleterious to the health of Canadians. I quote from the Deputy Prime Minister's own press statement demonstrating our commitment to protecting the environment. It had nothing to do with that but everything to do with protecting the auto manufacturers' industry.
Before the bill came about both the Ethyl Corporation and the vehicle manufacturers' association were under negotiation to solve this problem outside of the House. They were close to making a decision. Then the minister came forward with this bill and the auto manufacturers, knowing they would get a response in their favour, understandably backed away. Sure enough this bill rather than solving a problem is muddying the waters. That is unfortunate. We would not be wasting House time with the bill if we had let nature take its course.
We have requested an independent third party to review MMT to determine if it damages onboard devices. If it does we have two options. We need to look for an alternative to MMT or we need to change the onboard devices and work out some agreement with the private sector.
The minister noted that MMT has been banned all over the world and Canada is the only country still using it. I bring to the attention of the minister that last year the U.S. district court of appeals said MMT could again be used in the United States. Therefore while we are pursuing a course to ban MMT the United States will now allow its use. Why are we engaging in this behaviour?
The Minister of Industry wants one unified gasoline for the entire continent. Why are we pursuing a course which would take us into a different type of gasoline when the United States is trying to bring back gasoline which contains MMT?
This is telling us there has been an abuse of power. We have seen legislative shenanigans and the government is favouring one group, the automobile association. That is reprehensible.
I hope the Deputy Prime Minister will take the mature course and ask for an independent study, as my friend from Elk Island has requested. That study would give us the answers we require and it would serve the people of Canada and the environment well. It is fundamental for us to get these answers not only for the citizens of Canada but for the environment.
If we remove MMT the minister must lay out another plan. She must be aware that nitrous oxide content would actually increase in the emissions from cars by up to 20 per cent or more, which would greatly increase health hazards to Canadians. Having seen many people with pulmonary diseases, that is grossly unfair.
She also spoke about having two types of gasoline in Canada. Quite frankly that is a fantasy. Why do we not have one gasoline, the best and the cleanest, which we could responsibly and cost effectively use, that would be fair to both sides, the auto manufacturers and the petroleum corporations?
I ask that we act together on this issue. It is not an issue of one side against the other. It is an issue for all Canadians and for the country.
I also strongly suggest that in the area of transport there is much which can be done by new technology. Fascinating advances have been made in making cars and other vehicles burn cleaner and safer. Much of these technologies have not been brought forward in an aggressive fashion. I believe we can take a leadership role in promoting these very substantial discoveries and bring them to the forefront. It is the responsibility of the House to bring them forward in order for them to become a practical reality for all Canadians.