Industry committee  Yes. I think there are two issues we're dealing with on steel and aluminum. We have the provisions in the actual agreement and we also have the national security 232 actions that the U.S. took against steel and aluminum. We also successfully removed those, as you know, but now we do have a process of ongoing consultation with the U.S. about imports of steel and aluminum into North America, and we're trying to determine that there's no transshipment or no back door for other countries to have steel and aluminum come into North America.

Industry committee  Well, it depends on the actual specific provisions. When it comes to some of the provisions with respect to data protection, clearly, we will have to offer that to other trading partners as well.

Industry committee  Thank you. I think the whole area of dispute settlement is probably the one where we managed to achieve the most in the negotiations. We came into this negotiation with the U.S. insisting on getting entirely rid of the existing chapter 19 under NAFTA, which is the only reason we've been able to win a succession of cases on softwood lumber over the years, to maintain some degree of access to that market, although it remains difficult.

Industry committee  Well, the provisions on trade disputes, on anti-dumping and countervailing duties—the trade remedy issues—were left largely as they exist now. I believe that's chapter 10 now. The state-to-state dispute settlement was significantly modified, as I just pointed out. That's now chapter 31.

Industry committee  For softwood lumber, since it involves countervailing duties and anti-dumping duties, we would be more likely to use chapter 10—the new chapter 10—because under that, we can actually challenge the U.S. application of its own laws. We have won many times in the past and demonstrated that the U.S. did not properly apply their own laws when applying and calculating these duties.

Industry committee  I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding here. We don't complete formal pieces of analysis when we're preparing for negotiations. We rely on the expertise of our trade policy team, part of which you see here. We rely on consultations with stakeholders. We don't have the time to produce formal reports for analysis on all of those issues, but I can tell you that this negotiating team is better informed on these issues than any other one in the world.

Industry committee  I didn't say we didn't have time. I said it's not something we routinely do. We rely on the expertise of the people we have. We addressed many of those issues in the trans-Pacific partnership negotiations, so broad discussions of those issues had already taken place. Many of those issues had already been addressed in those fora.

Industry committee  Well, you're quite right, the European Union takes a different approach on these issues than the U.S., certainly. We do have agreements with the European Union, as you know, and with the United States. We're required to bridge the gaps if we're going to have the kinds of access we're going to have to both of those markets.

Industry committee  If I could, Madam Chair, I'd like to bring one of my experts to the table.

Industry committee  Thank you and good morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the invitation to appear before the committee today. We look forward to answering questions regarding the outcome of the new NAFTA agreement, following my opening remarks. The signature of the new NAFTA on November 30, 2018, followed 13 months of intensive negotiations.

Agriculture committee  We certainly had extensive discussions about timing issues, including that one. The U.S., once it had ratified and once it had sorted out its own issues between the U.S. administration and the Democrats in the House, wanted to move very quickly. Mexico ratified in December, and the U.S. managed to ratify fairly quickly in the new year, in January.

Agriculture committee  I'm afraid it is just not possible for me to give you any kind of precise date. I think we're moving at a good pace through the House of Commons process. We will then have to go through the Senate process. We don't know how long that's going to take. It will be up to the senators to determine that.

Agriculture committee  Yes, we understand the dairy year starts on August 1. With respect to the rules, if we have not yet ratified it and we are into the month of May, those two months would be June and July. The first day of the third month following ratification would be August 1.

Agriculture committee  Aaron may wish to add to this, but, yes, following the ratification by the last party to ratify, the agreement is intended to enter into force on the first day of the third month after that. We don't know when that's going to be at this point. It's not simply a question of Canada, as the last country to ratify, completing its ratification process.

Agriculture committee  No. It was quite clear from the beginning that there would be no deal without concessions on our side on dairy, to some extent. When the U.S. first started, as was mentioned, their position was the complete elimination of supply management. They stuck to that position till very close to the end of the negotiations.