I want to start with that article in the Globe and Mail. The reporter stated that we provide our support too long to companies that have no hope of success. It is easy to say after the fact that a given company could not succeed. When you are working in that company, it is much more difficult to see if it will succeed or not. The report published on our portfolio underlined, with reason, that we might have provided our support too long to some companies. However, another mistake would have been to cut our support much too early to good companies. To correct that situation and to improve our decisions, we have improved our selection of the companies and have implemented very rigorous methods of reviewing their chances of success in order to focus our dollars as much as possible on those companies that are the most likely to succeed.
You are asking me if there is a link between those two things. Canadian venture capital must be invested very early in companies whose technology is not yet proven and which may not be even sure that it will work. It may happen that we invest venture capital too early in a project that will fail, which leads to a loss of capital. This appears in the statistics and adds to the poor performance of Canadian funds. If grants had been cut off more progressively, we would have lost less venture capital. The danger is that this will have an impact on the results of Canadian venture capital generally and that big investors will lose interest in this type of investment. The space we operate in is not appropriate to their performance expectations. We have to rebalance risk and performance in order to make sure that this sector will be attractive for investors.