Madam Speaker, I would join with the member in saying that all of us would like to see any figures from the government on any impact of Kyoto. The problem with Kyoto is some people see it as a panacea.
I would argue with the NDP that the problem with standing up every day with the one-sided argument that it will all be death, destruction, hellfire and brimstone if we do not approve Kyoto is not viable. To say that if we just reduce greenhouse gases everything will be fine does not look at the other side of the equation.
I mentioned earlier that we could reduce greenhouse gases significantly. We could dam the Fraser River for example and not burn as much fossil fuels and have nice clean hydroelectric power, but at what cost? We would kill the river. We cannot just say it is a net gain. There are tradeoffs.
The government has given us no figures on the impact on employment, the impact on sectors, or the impact of not doing it. It does not have a clue. As near as we can tell, the government has signed it as a publicity stunt or a general acceptance that we should all be more environmentally concerned. That is easy to agree with. It is not good enough as a government to just say it has not done any cost analysis one way or another, or no environmental analysis, that it just kind of agrees with it and it may cost $500 million and 450,000 jobs a year. That is not good enough.
To approve Kyoto we should have hard facts on our side. I agree with the House leader of the NDP that if we can have hard facts on how much damage it would do not to approve Kyoto, let us see those too.
As near as I can tell, the Liberals created this whole thing on the back of a cigarette package on their way over to Kyoto. They did not have a clue what they were negotiating when they went there. They came back without a clue on how to implement it. They have no idea how much it is going to cost. They just wanted to sign it. No one else would do that.