Mr. Speaker, a little earlier, the hon. member for Terrebonne tried to table a letter here in the House but was denied permission to do so. I would like to quote a few excerpts from this letter, which was written by the Minister for International Trade on February 23, 1996, and addressed to the Minister of the Environment.
I quote:
"My department continues to have certain reservations concerning this measure which I wish to draw to your attention. Recently the U.S. Court of Appeal overturned the U.S. ban. This has effectively removed harmonization arguments in support of Bill C-94. Indeed, since adding MMT to petroleum products is now permissible in the U.S., harmonization would now be promoted by introducing no new Canadian regulations.
An import prohibition on MMT would be inconsistent with Canada's obligation under the WTO and the NAFTA. The possibility is that the United States could mount a challenge either on USDR's own initiative or pursuant to a section 301 petition. Also Ethyl Corporation may try to advance an argument that such a ban would be a measure tantamount to expropriation of Ethyl's investment in Canada. Thus Canada may also be susceptible to an investor state challenge under chapter 11 of the NAFTA.
In view of the presidential and congressional election this year, American politicians are particularly sensitive to any foreign initiative which might injure their domestic industries.
In conclusion, let me stress my department's belief that Bill C-94 should not be reintroduced, as it could have many adverse implications for Canadian trade without compensating environmental benefits".
Mr. Speaker, for once we agree with the Reform Party, and we repeat our request for a six months' hoist.
We know that today, in fact for the first time, the automobile industry has invested enormous amounts in research and studies to determine if MMT is really harmful to automobiles and to our health.
Let us wait for the results of these studies and have our say at that time, instead of adopting a bill in a terrible rush-because that is what we are doing-without waiting for the findings of these studies. We are not taking sides, not for Ethyl and not for the automobile association, although I am not sure we could afford being sued for $201 million in American currency, considering Canada's financial situation.
I would appreciate the opinion of my Reform colleague on the subject.