I wouldn't say outstanding, but I thought he was very clear on the issue of defending supply management. I have no dispute there. He's on the record, and it's a good thing we held these hearings.
I think the issue that is still outstanding is how we've communicated that. Certainly, when it comes to the whole issue of negotiations at the WTO, that's the concern that has arisen. The government has been clear in Canada, but has the government effectively communicated that position? I think a number of our witnesses and members of the committee have indicated that that is the shortcoming.
My motion, which I hope will be adopted along with Mr. Brison's motion, so we have the two together, would provide instruction to the government through the committee following our hearings. We have to take a very clear stand to say that the text will not be signed by Canada, that when it comes to state trading enterprises and supply management systems, it's unacceptable. In that way, we've done our job as a committee.
Mr. Chair, to conclude, New Zealand has an exemption on state trading enterprises. When we look at the text, New Zealand's state trading enterprise dealing with kiwi is very clearly completely exempt from the negotiations and from the draft agricultural text.
Canada needs to communicate that to our partners—if the government is taking a strong stand—and obtain the same kind of very clear exemptions that New Zealand has obtained. If we do that, Mr. Chair, then I think we have a consensus, we've done good work on this, and we can move on to other issues.