Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague on his speech. Obviously, we are not here to oppose everything systematically.
However, if you read the amendment I put forward in this House a few weeks ago carefully, we were simply asking the government to wait six more months so that we could have conclusive studies, and I stress conclusive, that would prove something to us. The fact is that we have nothing of the sort for the moment; when we asked the automakers to provide us with specific and clear studies, they told us that their studies were confidential. It is rather strange for Parliament to be told that something is confidential.
We asked the health department to confirm whether this substance was dangerous to health. The most recent study confirms that it is not. That is why we are asking the government to wait, to make sure that the right decision is made. As for a North American market, the United States have just reintroduced this product on the market, but we are going contrary to a North American policy.
Ethanol too is an additive. Nothing shows that ethanol will do a better job than MMT. It is a new product on the market. The real solution would be that one day we no longer have to use any additives at all. That is the dream solution. But we are not there yet.
I will tell you something that happened in my riding. The electric car has been launched there. That is the solution of the future. However the technology has not yet been sufficiently developed to commercialize it.
I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the idea of developing in the near future a different but truly environmentally friendly technology, instead of replacing one additive by another. We are talking about two lobbies.