There may be a slightly different viewpoint from the European side.
A carbon tax makes sense as a soapbox issue. If there were a serious threat that bitumen from the tar sands would not get to the world market because of CO2 carbon tax issues, then of course—but it's just a way of taxing royalties.
The question is what are you going to use the money for? Is it going to go toward better environmental production, policies, technologies in Canada that you can transport and sell to the world? You might be a winner. We tried that one, and some of the industry won.
But look at Europe today, at the European common market. Look at the U.K. Look at Germany. They have ended up with energy that is so expensive that their industry has moved out. They are really short of possible jobs. The youth in Europe, 25% to 50%, are without jobs. This is the age group of 25, plus or minus.
I don't believe a carbon tax is the answer that people thought it was when they thought that the Kyoto plan would continue. Unless China, India, and other nations that are now out-producing us cost-wise apply it, or we apply a tariff that boosts charges on the import product when they don't have carbon tax in that nation, I think it's a losing way for everybody.
We have really exported jobs, which are going to nations that are using coal to fire their power plants. That pollution ends up everywhere, ladies and gentlemen—everywhere. The globe doesn't have borders in the atmosphere.