I think that, at the end of the day, there is only one Canadian position that gets put forward in a negotiation. It is part of our process as trade negotiators to attempt to ensure that the positions that Canada is putting forward at the negotiating table are as broadly consulted and comprehensive as they can be and reflect the widest possible swath of interests across this country. We are taking advantage of these opportunities to address concerns that have been brought to our attention and to create opportunities for Canadian businesses in the market with which we're negotiating. That comprehensiveness of approach, we hope, supports a broad cross-Canadian consensus around the validity of the positions that we're putting forward.
It's certainly nice, as a negotiator, to know that Canada's conduct of a particular negotiation is broadly supported in the country, but I think the answer to your question probably resides more in the international space. When there is a clear framework of a team Canada position that is clearly being advanced in a given negotiation, our negotiating partners have a high degree of confidence that it is not going to be fruitful to attempt to split the Canadian position away from the table and that Canadian negotiators are, in fact, speaking on behalf of the interests of the country as a whole.
I think I'll leave my answer there. Thank you.