I don't think there's a clear answer to that question, but I think the best answer is that it depends on what the federal government is saying to the Europeans outside of the legislative process, because the federal government has the right under the agreement to not apply parts of the agreement that the Europeans are not applying, which is the obvious thing to do. I do trust that the federal government isn't missing that point.
I think it would be very useful for the public and for parliamentarians to hear from the federal government clearly that we are not going to be unilaterally applying any parts of the agreement, and above all, one of the most controversial elements, which is the ISDS or the ICS provisions because of their profound implications for sovereignty. That's why I suggest that the most reliable thing would be if the legislation itself, in the section stating that the agreement is approved, were to clarify that it's approved for purposes of provisional application reciprocal to the provisional application agreed to by the Europeans. Then the federal government will be bound by the will of Parliament not to apply any elements of the agreement unilaterally.