Mr. Speaker, far be it from me to claim to be an expert. I would like to thank my honourable colleague for saying that my speech was well researched.
While I can say we will support the principle of the bill and then find, in the clause-by-clause study, where the devil is hiding—because they say that the devil is in the details—my point is not to have an arrogant attitude toward Canada or believe that it should not protect its interests. I just wanted to show in an objective and structured way that there are two competing economies in Canada.
There is the branch plant economy, as we saw with Rona. In Canada, all guidelines, all parameters are set by Bay Street, in Toronto. Quebec, however, has developed an owners' economy. Therefore, it is hard to understand why we are so attached to our head offices.
Canada and Quebec have two different and competing economies. In fact, they are objectively different. When, this country speaks, instead of Quebec, about international agreements with such organizations as the WTO, it is not protecting Quebec's interests.