Governments have spent a tremendous amount of money on new transportation technologies, particularly fuels, in the last couple of decades. To be honest, the results have not been great. We see examples in the United States—which I don't need to list—of governments spending a lot of money and producing very bad results.
Here in Ontario we were told that wind and solar could become commercially viable if government just got them through that early stage and helped them invest in their early-stage R and D. Now, after $7 billion and countless job losses in the manufacturing sector resulting from higher electricity prices and with elderly people having to pay significantly more on their electrical bills, we have 1.5% of Ontario's electricity coming from wind and solar. I can see no prospect of our exporting in a large way the manufactured windmills or solar panels—and we now have a less competitive, more costly business environment.
I think we all have a good reason to be suspicious whenever we're told that there's a commercially viable technology for which someone else's money is required, for which taxpayers have to pay. I think overcoming that natural and justifiable skepticism is a challenge for anyone who comes before this committee seeking government assistance.
Do any of you have a response to that?