International Trade committee  Thank you for the clarification. In any negotiation, whether it's a trade negotiation or anything, the tough issues are really left until the very end. Nobody wants to concede any of the difficult issues up front, because your trading partner will just continue to ask for more.

International Trade committee  I would say it's mostly true, but I think it is Parliament that votes on the final text, and if Parliament deemed it necessary to make those changes, we would have to return to the negotiating table based on that, absolutely.

International Trade committee  That is true. That's correct.

International Trade committee  I think all governments of the day, as I mentioned in my earlier answer, have supported supply management since its inception. It has been part and parcel of Canada's trade negotiations and Canada's agriculture policy. I don't think that's anything new.

International Trade committee  If this bill were enacted, I would not see a need for it to be in the negotiating mandate. I mean, you would probably put it in anyway, but it would be to remind negotiators of what is in the legislation. However, I think it would be clear—

International Trade committee  Thank you for the question. Maybe I can answer it in a more general way, given that the mandates are for cabinet purposes. I think it's very clear that each trade negotiator understands well his or her mandate. Whether it was under the CETA or CPTPP or CUSMA, that's where we started from.

International Trade committee  Yes, absolutely. In fact, the mandate that we received and that we put forward through the Minister of International Trade and that was approved by cabinet included words to the effect that there would be no incremental market access for supply-managed products. Words to that effect apply in every negotiating mandate that I'm aware of when we launch free trade negotiations.

International Trade committee  That's correct.

International Trade committee  Yes, any time we enter into negotiation, we would have both offensive and defensive interests, and on the defensive interests side, it's absolutely about protecting and defending key sectors like, for example, supply-managed sectors.

International Trade committee  Thank you for the question. Yes, that is my understanding. If this bill were enacted, if they wanted to make changes to it, they could do that.

International Trade committee  Honestly, I think if this did go forward, the reaction we would see would be other groups seeking to have their concerns, their issues, inserted into the departmental act as well.

International Trade committee  Do you mean reaction from Canadian stakeholders, or from—

International Trade committee  As I mentioned in my opening statement, since supply management was introduced, which was well over 50 years ago, various governments of various stripes have been very clear about defending the supply management system and ensuring that everyone understands how well it works for producers and farmers all across Canada.

International Trade committee  I think that assessment is correct. It would be unusual to find policy-prescriptive issues like this in a departmental act. I'm not aware of any departmental acts that include them. I think that where we see policy prescriptions like this is in the words enunciated from the government.

International Trade committee  Thank you for the question. Madam Chair, I will start, and perhaps my colleagues will join in afterwards. From a trade negotiation perspective, Canada has a long history in negotiating free trade agreements and has been at the forefront of negotiating free trade agreements for the last 25 or 30 years.