Thanks, Mr. Chair. Congratulations on your new role as of today.
Mr. Meadowcroft, it might surprise you to hear that Conservatives agree wholeheartedly with you about the realism around the timeline in which such a transformation should occur. That's why it's our position that governments shouldn't be setting targets, in some cases complete with criminal charges and other measures, that are unrealistic for the timelines they set, and they owe answers to Canadians about exactly how these goals are going to be achieved.
Ms. Doran, you are so articulate and you're very powerful. I just want to recognize that and to acknowledge your capacity here to help the coalition partners get their messages out on the policy agenda that you helped deliver and develop for the government when you were the senior adviser to Minister Wilkinson. Given that much of the airtime has been given to you today, I'm just going to ask the other witnesses to make some comments on the following questions.
Of course, Conservatives agree wholeheartedly that Canada must be competitive, and we must secure our supply chains and our value chains. We must put the cart before the horse, so we must develop our resources of rare earth metals and critical minerals that then can feed into the value and supply chains to develop EVs. We agree that interties need to be done. There have to be end-user distribution networks. All of those are undone. The governments and politicians who wax eloquent in this regard have not, to this date, answered Canadians on a single, actual, concrete, tangible question about how all of that is actually going to unfold in 11 years.
All of you have recognized the issues of competitiveness and different policies. Economists who propose carbon taxes for the purposes of emissions reductions do so in the context of saying that they must be implemented with an equivalent reduction of red tape and all other kinds of taxes, as well as protections for, in Canada's case, very critical emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries. That model is not on the table for debate in Canada. It's not the one being implemented by this government.
I would note some of the competitiveness issues, and I hope that representatives from the Chemistry Industry Association and also from Resource Works might want to get into this.
What strikes me is that the U.S. has no national carbon tax, and Canada does. The U.S. fuel regulations aren't nearly as aggressive as ours, which have caused all kinds of uncertainties, and others are about to come in. The U.S. has production incentives, not just investment incentives. Canada has investment tax credits that aren't ready; there are no production incentives, and they're, as we've all discussed, not yet complete. The U.S. has increased foreign and private sector investments, and Canada's are dropping like a lead weight because of the policies that are holding us back.
In Alberta's case, it is the private sector that has led those investments in clean energy and renewables. In fact, the oil and gas sector accounts for 75% of private sector clean-tech investment. It's the Province of Alberta, oil and gas, and pipeline companies that have long led this country in the development of renewables and alternative energies and the technology of the future. We'll do it again if we could just be allowed.
I also partly represent the industrial heartland. I thought you may want to comment about policy cues like declaring plastics as toxins, or some of the other policies that do the exact opposite of what people say they want, which is to incent investment and to develop all these technologies and products of the future.
I'll just open it up and let you take the remainder of the time if you want to comment on any of those contradictions.