Thank you, Mr. Wicklum. I would like to steer you towards my second concern.
You talked about petroleum being used for a whole host of products that we use every day. I am perfectly aware of that. However, we now know that many petroleum-based products can be replaced by lignin, for example, which comes from biomass. We know that it comes at a cost. That is actually why the bioeconomy is not fully developing. The cost is a little too high.
What I find offensive is the way in which billions of dollars are being invested. Let me just give you the one example of the carbon capture strategy in Alberta, which will cost $2.5 billion, of which 57% will come from the governments of Alberta and Canada. That money is not being used for research and development in sectors that have a small carbon footprint to start with.
I find that the logic being used is a little absurd. We are actually investing money and doing research and development in the quest to decarbonize the worst sector of activity in Canada. Meanwhile, we are not supporting sectors of alternative economic activity that could provide a solution that would considerably reduce Canada's carbon footprint.
Do you agree with me on that?