Good afternoon, and thank you very much for those questions.
I'll start with hydrogen. It doesn't need to be repeated, but I'm going to anyway: clearly, the era of fossil fuels is over. This means we have to work on the development of the next sectors, the sectors of the future, namely clean energy. The only form of hydrogen that is truly clean is green hydrogen.
Yet government still plans to support investment in other types of hydrogen, such as grey hydrogen or blue hydrogen, and therefore maintain this dependence on fossil fuels. Certainly, if we want to sustainably transform of our economy, we have no choice but to focus solely on green hydrogen. This is what we're strongly recommending to the government. It would necessarily involve the government revising its hydrogen strategy.
Second, and I think you understood it from my presentation, carbon capture and storage are false solutions. Instead of investing in transitioning workers who drive the Canadian economy, we're locking them into a sector that's doomed to disappear anyway. Carbon capture and storage is unproven, extremely expensive, and leaves us with the false hope that we can continue to increase oil extraction in Canada. For Équiterre, this is tantamount to abandoning people. Last year, Quebec was very courageous when it passed a bill putting an end to oil exploration. This shows the way forward for many countries around the world, including Canada.
As for the last point, there are different parts to it. I haven't studied the fund's governance in detail. I could send you more specific comments. There are certainly advantages to depoliticizing and making independent the management of certain funds according to established scientific and rigorous criteria, which are compatible with getting rid of fossil fuels. On the other hand, not knowing all the details of this fund's governance, I can't say without a shadow of a doubt that I'm in favour of it either.
I'll stop here, but I'm curious to hear what you also think about it.