Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question. That is the point. Yesterday the minister tabled in the House a paper which I hold in my hand. It tells about the studies which have been done to this point. To try to justify the $300 million the minister uses such things as the $5 billion cost of the prairie drought and the $6 billion cost of the 1998 ice storm. He uses the figures to say it would not cost much.
If we had signed Kyoto and it had been in effect for the last 20 years it would not have made any difference to the figures. That is the point. Canada accounts for 2% of the world's CO
2
emissions. Unless we can get developing countries and major countries like the United States and Japan onside we will not stop the effects.
The government has a pie in the sky notion that it would stop droughts. What Canadian believes that by ratifying Kyoto the Canadian government would stop weather changes? There are ways to stop it. If we want to get rid of CO
2
we must help China do it. We must help Brazil do it. We must help Mexico do it. We must use some of the technology the Americans are developing.
Instead we put our heads in the sand and say we will sign the accord and that will fix it all. We cannot change climate that easily. That is the point. How can we estimate the costs? What has the government been doing for four years? Why are the models not here? Most of what it is doing is based on modelling anyway. It could not model the last 100 years. There is no way it could have modelled that and have been able to predict what would happen. Members can check our weather forecasting and see how accurate it is on a day to day basis.