Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses for being here. I also thank them for their presentation.
Ms. Senneville, your presentation was interesting. You clarified some of the things we hear very often. In your brief on Quebec's Bill 112, you also said that exports to the United States are primarily commodities and energy products. In your opinion, domestic demand would not be able to absorb that. So that's the end of that.
You also said that there are not enough companies to process those products.
In other words, there is an expectation that trade barriers will be lifted, and we support that. I am part of a movement that has always been in favour of free trade, whether domestically or with other countries, but not at any cost. We don't have to take a rigid approach.
I would also say that there won't be a miracle. That's obvious. Studies show that it will never replace the American market, even in the best of all possible worlds. It's not possible.
That said, even if the concept is desirable in itself, aren't you afraid that it could be a kind of Trojan horse?
Last year, for example, a bill to remove interprovincial trade barriers was passed by the House of Commons under a “super gag order”. I'm referring to Bill C‑5, under which energy projects can now be approved by order in council.
Are you also afraid that this Trojan horse could ultimately threaten some of the things that make Quebec distinct?
When you think about it, language laws, the rate of unionization and the fact that we want to regulate our own securities can be considered barriers. It's a very long list.
I'm not saying this will necessarily be the case, but do you see it as a potential threat to the Quebec model?