Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I will continue in the same vein as my colleague Mr. Chambers and my Liberal colleague.
My question is for Mr. Usher.
We are talking about the cost of the transition. I get the impression that the transition is highly technological, that it will require massive levels of investment, capital and engineering, and that it will bring significant added value. Speaking of green jobs, it was said a little earlier that these are well-paid jobs because they involve a lot of technology.
I have the impression that once in a while people confuse costs and investments.
If a private company puts money into the transition and creates well-paid jobs, it suddenly becomes an investment. However, when a government wants to do the exact same thing, it becomes a cost to the taxpayer. Indeed, if anyone is the least bit familiar with how the economy works, they would know that investment generates capital, makes the transition possible and ultimately leads to economic growth. The green economy will be part of this economic growth.
First, I'd like to know if, in your dealings with business people, they would normally consider an investment as an expense or a cost, as we've been hearing today.
My second question is as follows. In your view, if we are to believe that the transition will be very costly, don't we risk missing out on one of the most important industrial revolutions in the history of humanity?
In other words, don't you think that if we don't move forward with this revolution as quickly as possible, innovation, jobs and technology will happen elsewhere, and that at some point we will have to import them?