Thank you, Mr. Bellavance. We have included in your kit a legal analysis that deals with this issue. It was prepared by our lawyers. As far as article 28 is concerned, the distinction to be made in this case is that Canada, until our tribunal ruled otherwise, already provided protection and surveillance under WTO tariff 04,04. As regards negotiations on our activities, concentrated proteins could be found in tariff line 0404.90.
In 1996, the United States did not want our new tariff quotas, which were negotiated at the WTO or as part of the Uruguay round, to be included but they did not win. More specifically, tariff line 0404.90 was at issue. At that time, the tribunal had said—and here I would summarize given that it was a complicated case—that Canada, prior to the establishment of tariffs resulting from the Uruguay round, monitored these proteins through a list of control products. According to the tribunal, the fact that tariff quotas were established to imitate this system meant that Canada's acquired rights and those set out in NAFTA were maintained. So we did not lose our rights under the WTO and the GATT.
A tariff quota comprises two tariffs: the one that is applied when the quantity falls within a quota and the one that is applied when a given quantity is exceeded. Consequently, the tariff quotas, particularly the quotas in the second category, were part of the conversion and applied under NAFTA.
We should be told if there is another legal case other than the government case or if certain facts contradict the legal opinion we submitted. We find this situation frustrating. The discussion is taken place behind closed doors. These people received legal advice. We know that a meeting of experts was held. We were there, in 1996, and we are fully aware of what was said and what was done. However, we are being told that does not apply
I believe that an in-depth dialogue rather than a simple no would be preferable.