I would not normally repeat this, but as one member mentioned, there are countries smaller than the member. He and I are friends I think, so I can say that nasty comment to him.

When we look at these models it is what we put in. The member understands computers; I know he is kind of married to one. He loves computers and he loves looking at models.

It is what we put in. The government has put in 3¢ a barrel for oil and 13¢ a barrel for oil sands. Those are the kinds of figures the government is using. The figures it is using are totally inaccurate. They are totally wrong, yet it continues to use the figures saying this is what it is going to be. If the government uses those kinds of inputs, it is fair enough that it can say it will have little impact on Canadians, that it will have little effect on business, that it will have little effect on jobs and that it really will not matter much.

Unfortunately the reality is that we cannot do that. We have to deal with the reality of what carbon is going to cost, what it is going to cost to produce that oil. We have to remember that there are penalties. The penalties are that once the Kyoto protocol is signed, we are then subject to a 30% penalty in 2012. We are also talking about the European Union and what they are proposing with the WTO. There are penalties in signing and ratifying Kyoto.

We have tried to point this out to the present Prime Minister and the future prime minister as he has attended the House. They cannot say, and no one here can say, that by ratifying Kyoto we will look at it later on and we may not go any further. We cannot do that. Once we ratify it we are subject to those implications once it reaches 55% of the countries with 55% of the emissions.

The day Russia signs on, it will hit that. Russia is the key to this thing going ahead. In order to do that, it will have to be promised lots of money for its credits. That is the bottom line. That is where it is at. It is about money. It is about the transfer of money. It is not very much about the environment.

There is another point we need to make and which we need to talk about. As we have said so many times, and it is a good way to close, Kyoto is about CO

. Kyoto is about greenhouse gases. Kyoto is about climate change. It is not about pollution. It is not about nitrous oxide. It is not about sulphur dioxide. It is not about particulate matter. It is not about those things. Most Canadians believe it is about pollution. It is not.

The deceit of the government, the way it has misled Canadians on this file will come back to bite it big time. I think you know this, Madam Speaker. You have listened to the facts very attentively. Many other members have.

Madam Speaker, you would probably take me up on my offer to come to your riding for a town hall meeting to talk about Kyoto. I would be happy to debate anybody on Kyoto using the facts and figures that are there. Madam Speaker, I think the people in your riding would thank you for telling them the facts about Kyoto.

You are kind of insulated with the vote. That will help a lot too. I think there will be a number of members who may well decide not to be here for that vote simply because of the implications down the road.

The most important thing is that we have a chance. This is our only chance to let Canadians know what Kyoto is. Remember the four questions that most Canadians across the country are asking. They are asking, what is Kyoto? What does it do to me; how does it affect me? Does it help the environment? Then they are asking, is there a better way to do this?

Today we have had the opportunity to talk about the better way. Yes, there is a better way. Yes, there is a way that does not commit us to this international bureaucratic nightmare. That better way is to put our trust in technology, to encourage it in research and development, in our young people and their entrepreneurship, in our business people and what they can accomplish. Let us have a made in Canada policy, one that we can live with, one that will not damage us, one that will not have the implications that Kyoto will have.

Rather than get into our modelling and all of that, let us think about this. Everybody can think about this. The members across the way can think about this. What about that person on a fixed income? What about that husband and wife with their kids? What about the farmers? What about the ranchers? What about the foresters? What about all of those people who are trying to make a living? What about all of those people who have been unemployed because of the softwood lumber situation? What about those people who are looking at another hit? What about them?

Kyoto ProtocolGovernment Orders

6:30 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)

Order. It being 6:30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:30 p.m.)