Earlier, Mr. Laurin, you said that the economic crisis we are going through currently is amplified or exasperated by the "doping" of resource and commodity prices. Allow me to make an editorial comment: doping is forbidden in sports; could it also be prohibited in the business world, the financial world? Business and finance carry a lot of influence today. Earlier, each one of you said that the business sector is looking for new markets to grow. Philosophically speaking, in the context of business and economy, it is still aberrant to maintain the same economic growth principles. Growth has limits. There are 200 countries in the world, each one seeking to trade with the other. To this end, countries must produce more than they need for domestic markets. There is, therefore, overproduction, whose goal is to spur over-consumption. There are limits to this. I would dare hope that your respective economists will start to think about this seriously, because at some point, we are going to have to strike a more human and realistic balance.
You also talked about equality of chances, and business leaders seem to be in agreement with you. Since we are talking about equality of chances, let's take shipbuilding as an example. For decades, Norway benefited from subsidies, whereas Canada and Quebec were not able to take advantage of similar subsidies. It has been 15 years. If, for the last 15 years, nothing was done to restore balance between the industries in Canada, Quebec and Norway, one can presume that things will become worse over the course of the next 15 years. You talked about being in favour of a level playing field, at least that's what I'm gathering from your comments. That means that notwithstanding the agreement, government, as the Bloc Québécois believes, must support this industry during a period of crisis. Research and development, innovation, and modernization of technological equipment must be supported by government.
Have I properly understood your definition of equal chances in this context?