I hope to finish with this, but I will first respond to Mr. Adler.
Empirical evidence is lacking. A study was carried out by someone from Calgary on the way the funds work in Quebec, in particular. I understand the Quebec venture capital industry. Representatives of labour-sponsored funds clearly said that, at the time, Mr. Mintz had not understood several parameters and aspects of labour-sponsored funds' implication in venture capital.
A conclusion cannot be made based on a single study, especially since other testimony has confirmed the programs' success. There are reasons why, in some cases, the funds cannot be as high as private venture capital funds. It should also not be forgotten that this is a savings vehicle for Quebeckers and that it helped Quebec—which ranked last in terms of personal savings—become a solid performer in that area. That should not be forgotten.
To respond to Mr. Keddy, I would like to specify that, if the government was open to separating the provisions so that they would be voted on individually, we would vote the same way in the House as here, in committee. That way, we could vote in favour of good provisions—which some of them clearly are—and everyone would be happy.