Mr. Speaker, I commend you for your great work.
My comment is on semantics, and it is meant to be respectful. I do not want to be accusatory in any manner. I believe that we can all improve in this House. Earlier my friend and colleague from Sarnia—Lambton used the term “third world”. We should all commit to using better language when possible. The “developing world” is a better way to describe countries that are less fortunate than ours and that are on a different part of their path to developing.
That aside, my question is also about semantics. We are talking about a fund that has been described as “green and sustainable.” There are a lot of other funds and other governments that fund oil and gas companies. Oil and gas came up earlier. I have been working hard to try to divorce my party from oil and gas a little. Canada is an oil- and gas-producing nation, and we need oil and gas, but I do not think we need to support it to the same degree that we always have.
We do, however, need to support green innovation and the sustainable future of our country to ensure that we can develop more electrification. I wonder if the member has any comments with respect to the semantics, and whether we would be here if it was a $400-million oil and gas fund?