Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, all. I hope this works. If not, of course, please skip me and move on. Out in Alberta, I guess we don't have great Internet.
As I was saying [Technical difficulty—Editor] really important one. It's a policy that has changed the energy landscape in North America. I would argue that it's one of the most important climate change policies that we've seen anywhere to date. The scale and scope of what it's trying to do, applied in an economy the size of the U.S., is going to swamp most other measures.
Just to give you a sense.... I'm sure you've seen some data, but new research, which your clerk will provide to you—I apologize; I was only invited on Friday, so I didn't have time to get a full brief in—by John Bistline and co-authors, published in Science, pegged that the Inflation Reduction Act is likely in and of itself going to put the U.S. on target for a 37% reduction in emissions below 2005 levels. Canada, by contrast, even with a broad suite of additional measures as modelled by Environment Canada, would only get to 34% below 2005 levels. Those numbers, and also the scale of investment that we're going to see south of the border, are going to—or already has, I guess—put substantial pressure on Canada to redouble its efforts.
I could speak to many aspects of what's changing in North America today, but I want to focus on one part for the most part, and that's electricity. I'll fit in a little bit on oil sands at the end.
I do think that one of the challenges we see when we quote big economy-wide numbers like those I just cited for emissions out of the U.S. is that they hide important sectoral differences and [Technical difficulty—Editor] dealing with, arguably, since the Chrétien government and the Kyoto protocol. It's simply that, if you look at the [Technical difficulty—Editor] group or the EIA, they're all seeing that most of the emissions reductions in the U.S. are coming [Technical difficulty—Editor]—