My question is also about supply management.
Here is a brief history. On November 22, a motion was presented by the Bloc Québécois and unanimously adopted by the House of Commons. This motion contained a mandate, which was spelled out in three very clear paragraphs, for the chief negotiator at the WTO negotiations. During the election campaign, two or three debates were held on agriculture, including a major national debate, and every party clearly came out in favour of maintaining supply management and the fact that it was sacred.
Then, a week before or immediately following the election, Canada's chief WTO negotiator said that he did not feel bound by the unanimous decision of the House of Commons, which had determined that supply management was sacred. Who's in charge? The negotiator or the government? It was very surprising.
When the House returned, questions were asked, and last week, the minister said that he did not really support supply management, stating that Canada was only one out of 174 countries, that we could not always win and that we sometimes had to give a little.
When that happened, the Bloc Québécois contacted almost every agricultural association, at least in Quebec. Two days later, the minister was asked the same question and he replied that the government would protect and defend supply management, that his party had defended it in the past and that it would continue to do so. So the minister came back to his good intentions.
Do you get the impression that when Canada is sitting at the WTO table to negotiate, that it really defends supply management? And, in particular, does it explain what supply management is to other countries? I asked representatives from other countries whether they understood supply management in Canada, and they replied that it was similar to what exists in France. However, the two systems are completely different.
Officially, there is political will, but when we are at the negotiating table, it's a completely different story. Do you get the same impression? My question is a bit political.