Finance committee  There's one final thing I'll add about models. We don't have a model of innovation. There was a suggestion here from Stewart that economists understand innovation, and if we play with the price system, add some incentives, and put some inputs in, this output will come out in technological change.

Finance committee  Just to follow up on the original question, yes, it is quite interesting that it is especially large corporations, not just in Canada but in the U.S. and in Europe, that are in favour of a carbon tax. What is their motivation? Are they advocating for the type of $200- or $300-a-tonne tax that is needed to meet the goals, or are they trying to impose something, $50 or $100 a tonne, that would be an inconvenience to their smaller and medium-sized competitors?

Finance committee  No. I heard a lot of these numbers thrown out by Mr. Kenney at the end of his previous testimony.

Finance committee  I've heard a professor, and the name escapes me at the moment. There's one in particular at the University of B.C. who has very openly said that we're going to need at least a $200 a tonne target to meet our reductions.

Finance committee  Yes.

Finance committee  Right.

Finance committee  No, I think that's.... I mean, we saw it in the previous presenters, and now in this one. The vast majority of the commentators in this area believe fervently that a carbon tax is the most efficient way of achieving this goal. They may very well be right. The problem is, though, that they have not been able to get that message through to the public, so they end up talking to each other.

Finance committee  The average person, though.... I'm glad you raised that, because it was a point I wanted to make in response to Stewart's opening statement. Yes, large corporations like this are those that are best suited to deal with complex regulations. Large corporations tend to like a lot of government involvement in the economy.

Finance committee  I have no answer to that. For example, Mr. Elgie said that there is a very strong consensus among economists that taxes on consumption are preferable to taxes on income. Economists have never been able to convince the general public of the merits of that approach. I could be elected tomorrow if I opposed the GST.

Finance committee  I would like to start. The issue is knowing how we want to bring about that change. Do we want it to be imposed by the government? Do we want to change the relevant prices, which would certainly encourage young people to modify their behaviours? Do we want a technological change that does not cost too much?

Finance committee  I think it's just part of a wide range of policies that are making Canada less competitive. I think we're already seeing it show up in the investment numbers, for example. There is a semi-annual survey that was released this morning on business investment in the U.S. It's calling for a 10% increase.

Finance committee  I'd agree with that. It's imposing a tax on domestic production, and not imports. You end up just substituting imported carbon emissions for formerly domestically produced ones. It is possible to devise a tax that would account for that, but none of the carbon taxes we're talking about in this country address that problem at all.

Finance committee  Thanks for having me back. Polls show that a majority of Canadians don't understand or have never heard of a carbon tax. This demonstrates the gulf between them and the largely academic-bureaucratic elite who advocate this tax. For nearly three years, pro-carbon tax governments and bodies such as the Ecofiscal Commission have controlled the commanding heights of this debate with funding and media support that the fossil fuel lobby can only dream of, but they have failed to parlay these huge advantages into public understanding and support.