I can speculate. Obviously, you would have to ask the government for a definitive opinion on that, but my speculation is that it's political expediency. It's a way to have your cake and eat it too, or so they think. However, it is short-term thinking. The idea that you can meet your Paris Agreement commitments and have a healthy economy by subsidizing a solution like CCUS ignores two facts. One is that if everybody did that, if we did it the world over, you're only solving 20% of the problems from fossil fuels. The other 80% occurs when you burn those fossil fuels in generation facilities or cars. That's where the real pollution happens. So you haven't solved that.
The other problem is that you can't imagine a future in which you chug away happily producing the same level of fossil fuels we're producing now, plus 2030.... In contradiction to what a previous witness said, there is a peak. Even the Canada Energy Regulator says there's a peak by 2032, followed by continuing demand—and that's based on assumptions that I would question. I would say it's coming even earlier than that. That implies a disaster for the Canadian economy, if we allow ourselves to continue being so dependent on the oil and gas sectors.