That's why I poorly explained the government's position on the agreement being discussed with the European Union.
The minister tells us he wants to leave supply management on the table because he wants to discuss it and prove to the European Union that it's a good thing. However, he isn't unaware that the European Union, the United States and other countries will still attack our collective marketing tools. Setting this precedent is the best way he has chosen to ensure the discussion turns around a subject we normally shouldn't even be discussing.
The European Union, knowing that supply management is on the table, will no doubt say it wants to open its market and that we should open ours as well. It's on supply management and the Canada Wheat Board that it will attack us. Those are Canada's two collective marketing tools that are constantly questioned by other countries. That's why I find it hard to understand this precedent that we're setting by setting this to one side.
Historically, in bilateral discussions on free trade agreements with other countries, we simply exclude what we don't want to talk about, in particular supply management. That's what we should have done. I'm afraid we're setting a precedent that will recur every time we discuss bilateral agreements.
Were you surprised by the minister's statement? Is it the right attitude to adopt at the start of the negotiations, which may last two years, or even more, to say that we're ready to leave the supply management system on the table?