When the Prime Minister announced his intention to ram ratification of
the Kyoto through Parliament before Christmas this past summer in
Johannesburg, the country was caught off guard. But with each passing
day, it has become painfully obvious that it was official Ottawa that
was really caught off guard.

Ratification of the Kyoto Protocol binds Canada to reduce its greenhouse
gas emissions to 6% below its 1990 emission levels by 2012. To achieve
this target, Canada must reduce its carbon dioxide emissions by 240 MT
(megatonnes) by 2012.

However, the government's own calculations - released on October 12th -
reveal that ratification could result in the loss of up to 244,000 jobs.
Other organizations and groups peg the economic devastation at 450,000
lost jobs over a decade with a $40 billion hit to our GDP.

The last time this many jobs were at stake was during the 1988 Free
Trade debate. One can't help but note the irony that Canada's most
reviled Prime Minster, Brian Mulroney, (although Chretien will probably
reach new lows before he leaves office) at least had the courage to put
the contentious issues of Free Trade and the Charlottetown Accord (okay,
he was forced on this one) before Canadians for their judgment in a
general election and referendum respectively.

The government's Kyoto plan is full of holes. All calculations are based
on a 170 MT reduction as opposed to the 240 MT reduction mandated in the
Kyoto Protocol. And Ottawa was hoping that we would receive up to 60 MT
in credits for our clean energy exports - mostly natural gas - to the
United States. However the European Union, the G-77 (a coalition of
developing countries) and even the Yanks balked at this idea earlier
this week at a major climate change conference in New Delhi, India.

Before this latest setback, the feds estimated "tax financing" to fund
Kyoto initiatives would mean a $1,700 reduction in disposable income per
household in 2010. In other words, a family with $68,000 in disposable
income would end up with $66,300 instead. But this loss was based on the
170 MT reduction target ... now with word that clean energy credits are
off the table, the "model" family loses at the very least, an extra
$600. And this price climbs even higher when private sector - and more
realistic - models are employed.

On another front, instead of questioning the Prime Minister's
intelligence (a low blow), Premier Klein should have questioned Ottawa's
mathematics (see above) and its shocking admission that the feds truly
believe your money is their money. For example, Ottawa estimates that
its own financing - as if the money didn't come from taxpayers in the
first place - results in a minimal $200 loss for the "model" family.

Ottawa's plan engages in classic doublespeak by noting a "government
financed" model "avoids tax increases" but in the next sentence notes
" future budgets will make the actual decisions as to how to finance the
increased spending and accommodate reduced revenues - by allocating
surpluses, by reallocating or by raising taxes." If anyone can figure
this contradiction out they deserve a Nobel Prize.

Now in the height of arrogance, the Prime Minister has told the
provinces their will be no first ministers meeting until Parliament
ratifies the protocol. The PM continues to speak of overwhelming public
support for Kyoto, even though polls show that once folks understand
that Kyoto won't end metropolitan smog alerts on hot summer days,
support for Kyoto plummets. But be that as it may, why doesn't the PM
put the question of Kyoto ratification - equal in magnitude to Free
Trade and Charlottetown - before Canadians via a national binding
referendum?

Far fetched? Unworkable? A pipe dream? Hardly. The 1992 Referendum Act
could be used as the template - with minor modifications - for the
conduct of such a referendum. All key elements are found within the
legislation: The ability to ask one or more questions; consultation with
federal opposition parties on the exact question or questions to be
asked; and oversight by Elections Canada ... it's all there.

Such an exercise in democracy would engage Canadian taxpayers fully and
force both the pro- and anti-Kyoto forces to provide clear answers to
the myriad questions that envelop Kyoto.

How will our economic competitiveness be affected when the United States
- our major trading partner - refuses to sign on? How much will it cost
taxpayers over the coming decades to buy unused greenhouse gas emissions
trading credits - assuming as the government has that this market will
exist - from countries such as China, India and Russia? What will happen
to Canada if we, as a country, fail to meet our Kyoto commitments by
2012? Will international fines be imposed? How will we pay for them?"

Ratifying the Kyoto Protocol has the potential to harm every region of
Canada. That's why Canadian taxpayers deserve a direct say for or
against a specific legislative proposal. If there was ever an issue that
calls for a national referendum, this is it. Chretien's legacy is on the
line.

Will he go down in history as a democrat or demagogue?"