Thank you.
I'm well aware of the organization Futurpreneur. They do great work. I think it's important to note that they're a non-profit organization. They're not a government entity, although they are funded by the federal government. They have been consistently, actually, for quite a number of years. Previously, they were the Canadian Youth Business Foundation, or CYBF.
They've done great work. I know that first-hand, because I actually worked in that space for 13 years, helping entrepreneurs get started. They do really incredible work. It's also important to note that the $45.9 million was Futurpreneur's total loan portfolio value. That's not writeoffs, as Ms. Rempel Garner has said, or at least as the motion itself implies.
I would also like to say that I think the funding for this organization started in 2001 and that 18,700 or more young entrepreneurs have benefited from the business support services provided by Futurpreneur, because they don't just provide loans. They also provide guidance and support and coaching and peer-to-peer support, which is really important for entrepreneurs to get started.
The other thing is that, to my knowledge—I saw the article that Ms. Rempel Garner referenced when she was speaking to this motion—the loan in question, with the gentleman by the name of Félix Marzell, was made in 2013 and was repaid in full back when the Harper government was funding Futurpreneur. When I think about the benefit of this motion right now and what it's claiming, there are some inaccuracies in the actual motion itself. I think it's implying a conflict of interest. If you had received a loan in full and repaid a loan in full, I'm not sure why there would be a conflict of interest for a minister who actually served as minister after the loan was issued and repaid. It seems to me there's an anachronism there. It doesn't really make sense to me.
I don't see the merit in this particular motion to be studied at this committee. I think if members are really concerned about a conflict of interest, they should make a complaint to the Ethics Commissioner's office and have them see if there's enough evidence to actually investigate it. I don't see how this would be a conflict of interest.
Again, the minister wasn't even a minister or in government at the time when the particular loan that's being referenced here was made, and it was repaid in full. I don't understand how that could be a conflict of interest. You can't have a conflict of interest in the past, before you've actually served as minister. It doesn't make sense. That's illogical.
I would just say that this feels like an attempt to lump this in with some of the other things we've been studying and say that there are all these conflicts of interest. I think Mr. Patzer said that in his remarks. I don't think we should be doing that as a committee. I think we should be fact-based. I think we should look at circumstances and just be honest about what's really going on here.
I don't support this motion, but I'll be happy to hear what my other colleagues think.