Mr. Speaker, members on this side of the House are well aware that, according to certain documents, MMT is said to be a dangerous pollutant, while other studies say that it has not been conclusively proven to be harmful.
The member for Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis made comments about Ethyl Corporation which, over the years, has commissioned a number of studies on MMT. Consequently, I do not think it is appropriate to lash out at a company which, after all, did its homework. And if the courts made some decisions in favour of that company, it is because Ethyl Corporation did its homework properly.
As regards MMT, the problem is that the United States could re-introduce that product.
I am not saying that they will, but they are considering re-introducing it on the American market. Personally, I am just concerned that Canadian companies, including our oil companies, will have to make major and costly changes in order to stop using that product.
As you know, we agree with Bill C-94. Nevertheless, I ask myself this question, which I put to the hon. member opposite: Is this truly the right decision to make? Should we pass this bill that quickly, without knowing what the United States will ultimately decide?
Let us not forget that we live in North America. We could pass Bill C-94 only to find out two years down the road that the Americans are re-introducing MMT. In the meantime, we would have asked our oil companies to change everything so as to comply with this legislation. I am not convinced that MMT is harmful to our health. I have read studies. Ethyl Canada provided us with its studies and we also had discussions with the EPA.
We were told that it remains to be seen whether that product is truly harmful. Sure, we have to promote progress, environmental protection and sustainable development. We fully agree with that. However, we should wait for the decision of the Americans, because it is vital for us regarding this issue.