Mark Carney is the new leader of the Liberal Party of Canada

There's a fundamental problem with your line of thinking, in that we are around 1.5% of emissions. We could destroy our country's economy and bring that to zero and we would very marginally delay the climate problem reductions are targeting (it's worse when you realize the people with in demand skills will move and emit carbon elsewhere and the people that are left will do stuff like burn wood and coal to keep their mud huts warm in winter so the effect of bringing current emissions to 0 will be far less as emissions shift to different countries and change form.) So this report actually underestimates the negative cost because it overestimates the benefit of the tax. the only potential path to victory here is for things Canada does shaming other, larger emitting countries into change. When we are attempting to shame them we need to be cognizant of maximizing shame while minimizing harm to ourselves and there is no way an actual large carbon tax does that when there are a bunch of ways to get the same shame effect without actually taxing ourselves without reciprocation from the other emitters (my personal favorite plan is to just set our carbon tax to the output weight world average carbon tax and adjust it every year. Then our diplomats can point out how we would love for all you other emitters to raise our tax by raising your own, but there are likely other decent options as well.)

Further, the major problem with a carbon tax in Canada that nobody is talking about is that the carbon tax has to be huge to cause change because Canada as regulated away all the substitution options so people only change their carbon output when they are made much poorer. In economics this is called inelastic demand. There are a massive number of changes to existing regulation that would increase substitution possibilities and make demand for carbon more elastic, making a lower carbon tax have a larger effect and making these changes harms noone and makes everyone materially better off because they have more options but we are instead choosing to try and have a large carbon tax because the regulatory changes are hard and across multiple levels of government. Here's a non exclusive list of things we could change to make a massive shift in carbon demand over time:

1. Relax zoning to allow more dwellings, more lot coverage, taller structures and more freedom for land owners across most of the cities including removing exclusions for single family only zoning (basically give people the ability to build single family if they want and also build a lot of other options.

2. Increase dedicated bike lane and walking infrastructure so that more people take those much cheaper to provide options that are drastically lower in carbon output.

3. In areas that densify enough to justify it, run more public transit, more frequently to make transit a viable option.

4. Deal with fire in six story and under building in a way that doesn't require a second internal fire escape staircase (this ruins floor plans making it way harder to do family friendly 3 bedroom units).

5. Remove or drastically decrease most minimum setback, parking space, contextual anything limitations and streamline building and development permits to make it easier to get this stuff building even though it is unpopular among a vocal minority of the population that tries to hold it up in committee.

*edit sorry first post was so long ago I forgot I touched on some of this already. I'm leaving it because the above is more detailed*

Yeah, but I said "allow me to be obtuse" ;)