Honourable senators, if the Minister of the Environment was telling us that it was his policy and the policy of the Government of Canada that it was acceptable to have a pump at gas stations with MMT, provided there were other pumps without MMT, how in heavens does it follow that his whole argument for Bill C-29, which bans the transportation of MMT, makes any sense at all?
Honorables sénateurs, si le ministre de l'Environnement nous a dit que, selon sa politique et la politique du gouvernement, il était acceptable que les stations-service vendent de l'essence avec MMT à condition qu'elles vendent aussi de l'essence sans MMT, comment expliquer le projet de loi C-29, qui vise à interdire le transport du MMT?