Parliament is on the verge of ratifying the Kyoto Protocol. A vote to approve the treaty aimed at reducing greenhouse-gas emissions likely will be held in the Commons tomorrow, and in the Senate shortly.

Prime Minister Jean Chrétien is acting precipitately. His determination to forge ahead, probably using closure to shut down debate, is irresponsible.

There should be no vote until Ottawa has finalized a broad national agreement on how Canada's obligations are to be met. A deal with industry now appears close, as reported in this morning's Globe and Mail. But parliamentarians must have more detailed information yet to cast an informed vote.

Even then, ratification should occur only if Ottawa also tells the international community it will not remain in the accord at any price. Kyoto is a flawed global pact that deserves this country's support only if the cost to taxpayers and the economy is reasonable.

Canada is, by some standards, the world's largest per capita producer of the gases that cause global warming. There are good reasons for this; Canada is a thinly populated cold-weather country. But the nation needs to do more environmentally to be globally responsible and to help it secure the future. The world is moving inevitably toward a post-hydrocarbon era. Canadians, to maintain our standard of living, must be at the forefront.

That means pressing forward with the design of environmentally friendly vehicles in Central Canada's auto industry, and such steps as reduced flaring in Western Canada's energy industry. And it means a myriad of other innovations, as Canada continues to evolve from a resource economy to one focused on knowledge-based industries.

Kyoto's proponents suggest the agreement will help this happen. They may be proved right. But the bitter debate over the pact has given key Canadian industries and provinces -- particularly the oil patch in Alberta -- good reason to feel under threat. The energy industry is one of the few in Canada more productive than American competitors. It should not be damaged; neither Alberta nor the country can afford that.

Mr. Chrétien pledged as much last week in a speech in Edmonton. And it does appear Ottawa is delivering. The deal now in the works would make clear the specific role of so-called heavy emitters -- essentially major industry -- to reduce production of greenhouse gases.

They likely will be responsible for slightly less than one-quarter of Canada's overall Kyoto target, which is to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions to 6 per cent below 1990 levels by 2008 to 2012. Any deal will specify Ottawa's financial obligations to support industries if the cost of reducing emissions (or buying emission credits, a system established by Kyoto) rises so much that it has a big impact on the bottom line.

The talks are aimed at providing Canadian industry with the guarantees it needs to continue investing. Ottawa admits it was slow to recognize that uncertainty about Kyoto's impact was playing havoc with the energy industry, where decisions about future oil-sands developments often depend on projections of decades-long profitability levels.

In the parlance of the negotiations, the goal is to "ring-fence" Canadian industry. But such guarantees might come at a high price to the taxpayer if the economic impact of Kyoto proved substantial. Ottawa expects the cost on the federal books to be as much as $2-billion over the next decade -- a reasonable price to test a new effort at international governance. But the bill could be much higher if the cost of buying emissions credits rose to, say, $50 a tonne and Ottawa had to step in to help heavy emitters at anything above $15, as the terms of an agreement likely would provide. Many analysts say $10 is more likely, but this remains terra incognita.

Kyoto could prove an unreasonable drag on Canada's economy. And that would be against the nation's interests.

This is especially the case because Kyoto is faulty. The United States is not involved, which raises concerns about Canada's competitiveness with its major economic partner. Developing countries, including major emitters such as India and China, have no obligation to cut their emissions in the near term, and many still display insufficient willingness to begin doing so even a decade from now. Global emissions will rise even with Kyoto. Canada, no matter what it does, will have little impact on that.

Canada should make clear that if Kyoto's implementation costs rise significantly, it will withdraw from the pact, for which there would be little financial penalty. Ratification now, if undertaken, should be done with that asterisk.

If Canada were dissatisfied with Kyoto some years hence, other signatories likely would be too. A renegotiation of the accord might well begin. But the costs to Canada of Kyoto, as now written, might well be higher than for any other industrialized country. The federal government should be prepared to move unilaterally, and shouldn't hide that possibility from its Kyoto partners.

Canada, if it ratifies the accord, will be the only nation in the Western Hemisphere to take on the international obligation to reduce greenhouse gases. But it must not do so at any price.