My question was, and I'll just answer it, that this purchase doesn't seem to have changed anything with regard to those protests. If anything, the purchase might have increased them. It hasn't affected anything about first nations' litigation or British Columbia's concerns.
I'll move on to the next question, which refers to the wonderful trip we just had in Argentina to the G20 energy meetings. You talked about Canada's being a green energy leader.
One comment that I was struck by there was by the U.K. representative, who, when he was doing his three-minute spiel on where the U.K. had been and where they've come from, used three short sayings. One was “walk the walk”. The U.K. has legislated targets and has already reduced their emissions by 40%. We only have aspirational targets—and really, there's no indication we'll meet them in the short term. He also talked about “having your cake and eating it too”, and that this “grand transition”, as they called it, wouldn't necessarily be painful, but that the U.K. had created 450,000 jobs in the clean energy sector. The last one was, “put your money where your mouth is”, which I think is relevant to these estimates. The U.K. has spent $4.5 billion on clean energy projects, and has spent $2 billion on electric vehicle infrastructure.
I'm very happy that we've spent, and are going to spend more, on that infrastructure, but it seems that if we want to have a game-changing plan, if we want to be a green energy leader, we have to be a lot bolder than that. Here we have a $4.5 billion investment in clean energy and $2 billion in electric vehicles by the U.K. These are, I think, the kind of statements and investments we have to be making.