Thanks, Chair. If I still have time, I'll throw it back over to Jeremy.
Given the conversations we're having about the requirements to reduce emissions and the competitiveness issues between the U.S. and Canada, I want to mention the importance of the discussion around investment versus production tax credits and the way that governments incent emissions reductions in the U.S.
They have a method that offers a guaranteed price for actual, proven emissions reductions. For Canadians, for the committee members, it would behoove Canadian policy-makers to look at that model versus Canada's, in which layers of different kinds of carbon taxes have simply served to increase the cost of living and to make fuel and food unaffordable, without, it would seem, any relationship whatsoever to actual emissions reductions. That is a topic that I hope this committee will be able to explore with American representatives and others as we go forward.
I do want to ask a question about the SIF program. I understand, of course, the importance of Canada's owning the supply chain in critical mineral production, leading to meeting electrification goals. That's a very high priority that Canadians should address, but I have a question about Woodfibre LNG. That's a groundbreaking project. It will be net zero by 2030. It has an indigenous partner as an environmental regulator. It will be run on renewable electricity by 2027. The application was made to the advancing net zero and indigenous reconciliation part of the fund. It's mind-boggling that it was rejected. Can someone explain why?