Industry Committee on Sept. 19th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Good afternoon, everyone.

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 134 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry and Technology.

I would like to apologize for being late. I had noted in my calendar that the meeting started at 8:30 a.m., but there's been a change. Our meetings now start at 8:15.

I would like to remind all members to please review the guidelines for the use of microphones and earpieces. These guidelines, which are on your desk, are intended to protect the health and safety of all participants, especially the interpreters.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, April 24, 2023, the committee is resuming consideration of Bill C‑27, An Act to enact the Consumer Privacy Protection Act, the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act and the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts.

I'd like to welcome the two witnesses from the Department of Industry, whom we are pleased to see again after the summer break. They are Samir Chhabra, director general, marketplace framework policy branch, and Runa Angus, senior director, strategy and innovation policy sector.

As you may recall, colleagues, at the end of our last meeting on Bill C‑27, we were on CPC‑9. Specifically, we were on the subamendment moved by Mr. Perkins.

I will now open the floor for discussion on this subamendment.

(On clause 2)

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Ms. Rempel Garner, welcome to the committee. I'm very pleased to have you here.

Go ahead, Ms. Rempel Garner.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Good morning, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, colleagues.

In Ottawa, instead of “all roads lead to Rome”, it's “all roads lead to INDU”. This is my second time on this committee in my time in Parliament. For those of you I haven't worked with before, I think it's good to know who we are working with sometimes instead of just faces yelling at each other in the House of Commons.

My educational background is in economics. Prior to politics, I managed the sponsored research portfolio at the University of Calgary and was involved in academic tech transfer for over a decade. I previously served as the Minister of State for Western Economic Diversification, so I looked at all of those issues from a different side of the coin.

I've been working with colleagues who sit on the committee now on the issue of artificial intelligence and emerging technologies for the last couple of years. It's nice to be back on this committee dealing with what I think are really important issues that often aren't ballot questions but that I think are fundamental to what the Canadian economy will look like in the next 10 years. It's a pleasure to serve on this committee again and to serve with all of you.

Mr. Chair, since this is our first meeting since the summer and the summer was busy—there was a lot of news—I will say that I did post notice of a motion with regard to the Futurpreneur program. This is a notice of motion that I gave on Tuesday.

I'll move:

That, given recent reports that ISED's taxpayer funded loan program for “future entrepreneurs” has resulted in $45.9 million in writeoffs for taxpayers, and there may be conflict of interest concerns regarding a grant recipient and their relationship to a current senior member of the federal cabinet, the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology undertake a study of the future entrepreneur program comprising of two meetings, invite the following witnesses and others as deemed appropriate by the committee, and report its findings to the House:

Karen Greve Young—Futurpreneur CEO;

François-Philippe Champagne—Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada; and

Mélanie Joly—Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Colleagues, the impetus for this motion comes from an article written by Blacklock's Reporter that was published on Monday, September 9, 2024. The title of the article is “Write-Offs Eclipse $45,000,000”. The nut of the story is “Write-offs under a taxpayer-backed loan program for 'future entrepreneurs' have cost over $45 million, says a Department of Industry audit. Best-known borrowers under the Futurpreneur Canada program include Foreign Minister Mélanie Joly's husband”.

If you read through this article, the audit in particular raises some problems. It suggests that there isn't actually benchmarking data for whether or not the funds are doing what they're supposed to do. For me, programs like this are designed.... I'm not talking to filibuster here; I just want to give my thoughts.

Programs like this are designed to give young entrepreneurs a heads-up. Given the changes in the Canadian economy over the last several years and where the Canadian economy is going, programs like this should be designed to maximize economic output. They should be measured for success. There should be alterations made to perhaps granting eligibility. That should be done on a regular basis because, as colleagues, we have a fiduciary responsibility to taxpayers. You know, 45 million dollars' worth of writeoffs.... The article states that close to 20% of the loans were in arrears. To me, if you're sitting on a corporate board—and I know some of you have—you would be looking at those numbers and going, “Hmm, maybe we have a problem here.”

If there's no problem, the study will show that there's no problem. However, I would like to determine what the conflict of interest rules are and if they're adequate on this program, and also if there need to be adjustments made to the granting criteria such that perhaps the percentage of loans in arrears should go down.

I hope you'll consider this motion in that spirit—the spirit of improving the program—but certainly the news article was concerning for me, and I hope we can dispense of that with a quick study.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, MP Rempel Garner. Welcome again to the committee.

The motion has been tabled. It was sent on Tuesday. Proper notice was given.

We're debating the motion right now. I have on my list Mr. Patzer, as well as Mr. Généreux, Mr. Turnbull and then Mr. Masse.

Go ahead, Mr. Patzer.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Thank you very much.

Yes, it's also a pleasure and an honour for me to be back on the industry committee. I served with my colleague here last time I was on industry as well. It was a fun committee to be on, so I'm quite happy to be back as well.

I'm also getting used to these new microphones. It took a little while to figure out how to switch the language, but I have that figured out now, so that's good. It's nice to see that we're updating some of the equipment around here.

I think this is a good motion, just given some of the news we've been seeing lately around some people who have been able to take advantage of relationships. The misappropriation of taxpayers' money has been a common theme as of late.

This is a good motion. It's a fair motion to make sure we do right by the taxpayer, but also, as my colleague so eloquently said, to do right by young entrepreneurs who are looking to get started on their career path, their path of choice.

I think it's a fair motion. I look forward to getting into a study on this as soon as we can. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Welcome, Mr. Patzer, to INDU. I'm happy to have you on board.

Next on my list is Mr. Turnbull.

The floor is yours.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you very much, Mr. Turnbull.

I now give the floor to Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome back on committee to my Conservative colleagues who I know have actually done good work here. I'm glad about that, because the previous two Conservative members who were here gave me quite the concern.

In fact, one was abusive to the point where you, Mr. Chair, couldn't control the microphone. I want to note that, because that member went on to party with people in this community. It was well noted in the media, but that behaviour here was a concern to me, because we literally lost our rights with a member turning the microphone on and off at a whim's notice without you having control. Hopefully, the new Conservative members will contain their excitement at committee and actually follow the chair's order.

I did want to note that, Mr. Chair, because that was something that was exceptional at the last meeting. I was going to bring a procedural motion. I'll hold that procedural motion in abeyance at the moment. I know that the colleagues who have joined us now actually have a history of participating very well in this committee.

I appreciate the motion, but I guess what I'm concerned about is that New Democrats presented a motion on Monday. Perhaps the members aren't aware of it. I'll read it into the record again. I believe it's important business that should actually be before this, because it was presented first. Second of all, the motion we have here, as the parliamentary secretary has identified, there are some issues, and I am always open to anything. It seems to be more of a fishing expedition, in some respects, versus the factual motion that I have that deals with Canadians at the moment—

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Just so we're clear.... Mr. Masse, I'm willing to let you read it on the record again, but we have to deal with the motion that's on the floor first because there is a motion on the floor right now.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Okay.

I don't have to read it, I guess, but I just wanted to reference that we have to make a choice. I won't read it. It is an extensive motion, so for brevity I will not. The motion I have is about credit cards, the cost to Canadians and the impact that's having. My concern is that we would deal with this motion now, making my motion subservient to that, when we know, at least in my opinion, the damage and the effect that's taking place on Canadians, consumers, the economy, small businesses and so forth right now. Whereas this one.... I'm open to looking at some of these things, but I can't support it right now because it comes at the expense of what I do know is happening right now to Canadians. That's the challenge I have when I'm presented with this at the moment.

I just want to be clear on that. The timing, to me, is really important. We have a limited number of opportunities at the committee. I'll finish with this because I don't want to take too much time, and I won't read the full motion. I respect your advice with regard to staying on topic. However, it is germane in the sense that, once we choose this right here, that means mine is basically shunted off to later on. That's the concern I have with regard to this.

I won't support this until I get my credit card study because that is really happening right now. Even as we have this committee meeting, Canadians are consistently getting ripped off. If you look at the models of Australia and other places, it's unbelievable that we let it go this far.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the motion being put forth. Again, to me, it's about timing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Masse.

Mr. Garon, the floor is yours.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The motion contains a number of things and, let's be honest right out of the gate, it seems to have, if not an objective, certainly the consequence of completely clogging up the committee's agenda for the next few weeks, and more particularly of preventing us from doing legislative work, which should be our priority now, based on my perception of what we need to do at committee, although we are sovereign.

Obviously, this program model to help and finance start-ups may be altogether acceptable. However, with this kind of model, public funds flow into organizations whose leaders are not necessarily subject to the Conflict of Interest Act. As a result, control over the use of public funds is lost or issues may become apparent once the money has disappeared or, at the very least, been misspent. This model has been criticized. That was the case at SDTC, Sustainable Development Technology Canada. Here we have another one. We should certainly reflect more deeply and completely on this long-standing practice by the federal government, on all sides of the House.

Despite all that, I get the impression that the purpose of the motion is to delay our work. I certainly don't want to judge the intent, but we will recall very recent cases where Conservative motions have resulted in witnesses appearing. Meetings were called in the middle of the summer under Standing Order 106(4). I know that made you very happy, Mr. Chair. We know you to be a patient man.

We propose studies of this kind and, in the end, we put anything and everything on trial rather than working on the purpose proposed in these motions, essentially because the political agenda is broader. I have a feeling that might be the intent of this motion. That's my impression, for what it's worth.

We see the Conservative strategy. For example, SDTC was raised again before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. It may be relevant. However, we're seeing the same thing every time we talk about a program that funds small start-ups, particularly when it comes to businesses that could become green transition and environmental technology leaders. By putting the funding model on trial, even though the case may be legitimate, we're also putting these businesses on trial. In doing so, we're harming their reputation, freezing funding, and hindering the green transition, which the Conservatives are obviously not very fond of. That's what's in their platform, if they have one. That's theirs, and that's fine. At the end of the day, we're realizing that we end up putting these businesses on trial.

In Quebec, we have a bunch of businesses like this. We like to innovate. Long before the current government came to power, Quebec introduced an emissions trading system that makes the emergence of these types of technologies cost-effective.

Given the legislative agenda before us and the time available to us, I'm not sure this is the right time to hold this trial. We don't know how much time we have left to do our work.

I will now turn to Bill C‑27, and this is directly related to the motion before the committee. I will then speak to Mr. Masse's motion. The Conservative motion was clearly drafted in such a way that my NDP colleague would feel guilty voting against it. I'm glad he saw through that. We can consider his motion, which has merit.

Having said that, we've all had conversations about Bill C‑27. We don't all agree on the terms, the amendments and the details, but we do agree that parts of this bill are important. Quebec has passed Bill 25 and there may currently be inconsistencies between it and the federal bill. Some provinces are waiting to amend their personal data laws. I'm referring here to the first part of the bill. We've always said that we feel the bill should be split up so that we can pass it in chunks and ensure that we're acting in the public interest. I believe we need to continue to work out our differences and move this bill forward. I'm not saying it will be easy. However, if we start making a circus of motions and undertaking studies of all kinds for which the committee sets aside a Monday here and a Thursday there, a few months will certainly have passed without us being able to work on Bill C‑27. Since time is a very scarce resource here, I don't think this way of doing things would allow us to work in the public interest.

Given the content of this motion and the merits of all these motions, we will not support it.

With regard to my NDP colleague Mr. Masse's motion, I will be pleased to discuss it at greater length when we debate it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Garon.

Ms. Rempel Garner.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

This was a motion put in place because I was concerned about public funding on a program. The gaslighting on it was this motion or that motion. I would like to think that, among colleagues of all political stripes, I have a reputation for being a bit of an independent thinker. It sometimes works and sometimes it gets me into trouble, but nonetheless.

The intent of the motion here, colleagues.... First of all, I want to address one of Mr. Turnbull's points. He suggested that there wasn't an issue with the number of writeoffs in this program. There are. There's an estimate that at least 20% of these programs are in arrears at any point of time. Yes, it is an arm's-length organization, but it is funded by the government and within our scope. If the level of arrears is that high, then we have an obligation, through this committee, to ask why that's happening and if the granting criteria could be improved.

I could alter the motion if you wanted to talk about conflicts of interest and about the man that Mr. Turnbull mentioned. He is the husband of the foreign affairs minister, who received over $25,000 from the NRC, the National Research Council, while his spouse was a sitting cabinet minister. We could do that.

In the spirit of good faith, this program to me looks like it probably needs a tweak in terms of eligibility to ensure that these writeoffs aren't so high. That's what we should be doing here.

With regard to my Bloc colleague's assumption of motive on why we're doing this.... Colleagues, ISED is one of the largest distributors of grants and contributions in the entire government. It's literally hundreds of billions of dollars. Seriously. It is the water font of direct subsidies to large corporations. Its directors general and bureaucracy are at very high risk of being captured both by themselves and also by industry. It is our job to scrutinize the decisions made on expenditures within the department, and whether or not they are providing value added for the Canadian taxpayer.

I understand there's a legislative agenda. However, we have to balance that legislative agenda, colleagues, with the scrutinization of these expenditures. We have to, because the reality is that Canada is in an inflationary crisis. Part of that inflationary crisis is caused by government spending, large amounts of government spending and large amounts of government deficit spending. If we are not scrutinizing whether or not that deficit spending has a net positive benefit to the Canadian economy and ensuring there are safeguards in program spending to get there then.... That has to be part of this committee's mandate. It has to be.

If we're not looking at what ISED bureaucrats are recommending to the minister or the lack of accountability, then who is?

When I was in cabinet and I had large grants and contributions, I was on top of every program design. I looked at every funding model. I reformed a lot of our funding models, when I started, because I couldn't see the safeguards to ensure value for taxpayer money in some of these things. I redesigned the programs. That should be the positive productive input from parliamentarians of all stripes, including the government members.

It's not saying that these programs aren't necessary or that these programs aren't good. It's just asking how these can be designed.... When you have a bureaucracy that perhaps is not willing or doesn't think that it's necessary to give advice to the minister for changes to program funding, or the minister is not doing it the other way, then it's our job to make those recommendations.

For me, a 20% arrears rate is high. If colleagues want to modify this down to one meeting, I'm happy to do that. We should be looking at spending at this committee. We really should be. We should be looking at how much money is going to corporate Canada.

To my colleague from the NDP, if my colleague would like his motion to go first in terms of study, I also have....

Since he talked about it, am I allowed to talk about it, or is that a breach of privilege?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Yes, that's okay.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Okay, I'm just checking.

I'll be really honest with you. The banks had a great week. Champagne, popping the corks—I wish I had these new mortgage rules with longer debt, higher levels of debt for housing. It was a great week for the bankers.

I actually support his motion, and I'd be happy to have it go first if we can also, in spirit, agree that we should be looking at quick, little in-and-out studies on whether funding programs are working. I think we should be able to have our legislative cake and eat it too. We can look at bills but also just come in with a few recommendations, ask a few witnesses whether they agree with those recommendations and report back to the House quickly so that....

My colleague from the Bloc said, the end is nigh—in a different way. We are at the end of this Parliament. We will be going into a campaign at some point. I think that it behooves us, and Canadians who are considering how to vote in the next election, to look at recommendations, even for our own platform development, on how to improve some of these programs so that it becomes a productive conversation with Canadians rather than just.... We need to have checks and balances on the funds coming out of ISED. It's kind of bad. Even if the intent is good, the management has been bad.

Management can be fixed with the right type of oversight and recommendations. I would speak in favour of this motion or other similar motions. If my colleague from the Bloc would like to amend it, I'm fine with that. If my colleague from the NDP would like his motion to go first, I think we could do that too. If we'd like to sit for extra meetings, I'm okay with that, but we need to do all of these things. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you.

MP Chandra.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I think the motion appears to be a bit misleading when it comes to $45.9 million.

One glance at the recent financial report shows that the outstanding loan portfolio for future entrepreneurs is about $34 million. This organization has existed since 1996. That is 28 years. During those 28 years, it has given out loans worth about $220 million. Even assuming that there's a 20% writeoff, it is over a period of close to 30 years. That is a writeoff of about $1.5 million a year on average.

In my previous life, I worked in a financial institution funding small businesses—small, new, first-generation entrepreneurs mostly. I know that the writeoffs on that kind of loan, a very high-risk loan, are normal. If it is limited to this amount for a period os 29 years, that is fairly good.

It is not just loans this organization used; it also used mentorship. You can imagine the risk involved in small first-generation loans under the guidance of mentorship.

I think the motion is misleading. The current portfolio is $34 million. With a lot of things pending before the committee, taking this up further, I think, is not a productive use of this committee.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you.

MP Turnbull, the floor is yours.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I have to say that I agree with my colleague, Mr. Arya, that this would probably not be the most productive use of the committee's time, given the fact that.... I know that the Conservatives have touted Futurpreneur. I have a long list of quotes that I've dug up very quickly. Many of the current sitting members on the Conservative benches have claimed and have given accolades to Futurpreneur for many years. I could read those into the record.

We've seen what the Conservative Party does on these fishing expeditions. I understand that sometimes they may be merited, and in those cases, I think you've often experienced that our party is willing to work with you and to undertake those studies. In this particular case, I don't think this is a good use of the committee's time, so we won't be supporting this.

I agree with my colleague, Mr. Garon, that really the committee is here today with our wonderful officials to work through Bill C-27, which we've all agreed, for quite some time, is a real priority for this committee. Obviously, government legislation generally takes priority. We know that committees are the masters of their own domains. We often say that, but we also all recognize that, as Ms. Rempel Garner said at the beginning of the meeting, it would be great to eventually study the AI portion of the bill. We have to get through a considerable number of amendments to get to that point, but I look forward to productively working through that process together.

I know we've reached a bit of an impasse on a key amendment, CPC-9, which I'm hoping to get back to today. I hope maybe we can get to a vote and move back to discussing Bill C-27.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, MP Turnbull.

Mr. Masse, you have the floor.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr Chair.

I appreciate the mover being open to my motion, but the reality is that I only have what I have in front of me, and it's not up to me to fix what's in front of me. I can tell you that the reason I brought my motion to this committee was that I need help.

I have been fighting the credit card agencies and companies for two decades. I go back to when we used to actually hand out scripts to have people switch companies so that they could get lower rates. We had around 1,700 people—until they got wind of what we were doing, having people switch rates amongst companies—get the lower rates. Therefore, this issue in front of us, again, will then make mine suburban, and I need help on that issue.

During COVID, we fought really hard to get 10% off the 20%. I spent six months working on that, and it was a real result that we got a reduced rate. Then, we also fought to get two months interest free, so I know, specifically, that my motion can yield results for people. We also took on Capital One for the privacy breach, which has been an issue I've brought here to this table before regarding fraud and so forth.

I appreciate that what's specifically in front of me here is a potential issue, but at the same time, given the time that we have and what I have in front of me, I know I can get results, and I need the help of this committee. We need national attention on credit card companies to bring to light that other countries do not have the same systems in place that we are being abused with. You can point directly to Australia, to the United States or to the European Union. You can point to all these different things. I want to get at that with any time that we have available. That's why I can't support the motion. I can't really fix it with regard to the time frame in this situation. I can't affect what other parties are going to do and so forth. All I know is what I can bring to this table.

Again, I brought it on Monday when we had witnesses here. I haven't brought many things to this committee because we've actually had some really good work and studies here, but I think it's time that we dealt with this issue. Quite frankly, I need help on that issue. I can keep doing what I want out there, and it's going to have a result. We're going to get some changes and we're going to get some attention, but the reason I bring things here is that I need help for those things. What I want is my study.

I appreciate this motion in front of us. I'm not going to get into the details of the merits and the politics and things of it. I know what I'm doing, and I know what this committee can do. We can actually get results for Canadians if we shed some light on it. For those reasons, I can't support the motion at this time. I really hope that we can get to what I put in front of us because I don't bring things here to this table that I don't think will get action.

That's why I want the credit card issue dealt with at a committee level, because it is much more substantial than any individual member of Parliament for any particular political party out there by themselves. It needs a home for a full investigation, and this home really needs to be in the industry committee because it is an industry issue, not just a finance issue. It's an industry issue because of the lack of competition, the privacy concerns and the collusion, which in many respects are at the cost of Canadians. It's time that we shed some light on that.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Masse.

Mr. Perkins.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I know you'll all be shocked to learn that I support MP Rempel Garner's motion.

I'm a little concerned about some of the positions put forward by the Liberal members. Because it's a taxpayer-funded, arm's-length body does not mean it's exempt from scrutiny from Parliament. In fact, we've spent a bit of time on the Liberal green slush fund, which is an arm's-length foundation where we've seen almost $400 million of taxpayers' money taken for the personal interest of Liberal appointees to the board. Therefore, it is possible for us to look at that.

It's $390 million, MP Badawey, if you want to relook at the Auditor General's report. I would invite you to do so.

I mean Mr. Turnbull. I'm sorry; it's easy to mix up the direction in terms of the voice.

Let's talk about the issue. I'm also concerned that somebody thinks that $35 million to $45 million is an insignificant amount. That might come from, obviously, a party that thinks spending $15 million on potted plants at parties is a valuable taxpayer expenditure. I won't make any further comments about potted plants.

The loan loss of this organization is huge. I, too, worked for a financial institution for many years. I also have served on boards of financial institutions. Banks do less than 1% loan loss. The BDC, which takes much higher risk for small businesses and which is accountable to this, has about a 2% loan loss. This loan loss is much higher and needs an examination of what's going on.

MP Masse, we've said there's merit in the credit card study, and we can walk and chew gum at the same time. We've done it before. We can do concurrent studies on things. It's not difficult. This is not asking for a massive amount of committee time, contrary to what some have asserted. The proposal is for two meetings.

There is no time set here, MP Masse, about which study comes first in this motion. That's easy enough to work out once we pass the study motions.

I'm assuming that MP Masse would actually move his motion. Right now it's just on notice. We can't actually deal with MP Masse's credit card study unless he puts it forward as a motion, rather than just on notice.

From the comments of my Bloc colleague, the Bloc has always been concerned about this bill, as we are. I'll point out that the government put 55 amendments forward on this. If the government's concerned about the amount of time it has taken for amendments, maybe they shouldn't have put in such a crappy bill, which they've had to amend 55 times already and are table-dropping. Maybe they should have done their homework first.

I think you'll find, as we go through this bill, that every single amendment that we've put forward is a real, substantive issue that witnesses have asked for. To say that somehow we've been delaying it.... It is the government—the Liberal members—that so far spent five of our 10 clause-by-clause meetings filibustering this amendment and wasting committee time on a filibuster, which I know MP Turnbull continues to want to do going forward. Instead of listening to a Liberal filibuster and wasting another five meetings to put 10 meetings on a Liberal filibuster on CPC-9, I think it's time we get on to some other business that is more pressing. It doesn't seem pressing to the Liberals to pass this bill when they filibuster every amendment that goes out.

I would ask that my fellow committee members refocus this committee on some work that Canadians want us to do. ISED needs to be held accountable for its lack of spending controls on many programs, from the green slush fund to this. Yes, the government needs to be held accountable for why, after nine years, they've done absolutely nothing to deal with the outrageous interest rates and credit card fees that Canadians pay.

There's a lot here for us to go on. Until the government can sort itself out on the inadequacy of the proposed privacy tribunal and not waste our time for another five meetings filibustering this motion, we should do other work.