I'll start on the first part of the question, Mr. Chairman.
In terms of harmonization, right now the United States has milk protein concentrates under 0404--well, 9010, but to keep it simple I'll refer to 0404--and has defined milk protein concentrate to cover any concentration of protein between 40% and 90%. The CITT, interestingly enough, was dealing with a product that was 87.5%. They didn't call it MPI or MPC, as we've heard before. They say there is no clear distinction in classification or definition of milk protein concentrates, and therefore they didn't set a level at which point over 85% it becomes an MPI or below 85% it becomes.... They made it very clear that they were not in a position to do that.
So that's what the U.S. does. What we're suggesting, simply, is that if article 28 is not the option, then basically the option for Canada is to pass legislation to put a note into the tariff schedule, under chapter 4, to explain that this chapter and this tariff line 0404 would cover milk protein concentrate up to a concentration of 90%. That way you would basically harmonize with the U.S.
Why 90%? Perhaps I can explain. If you're going to concentrate protein, you're still going to have some moisture. From a technology standpoint, as we were told, that could go up to 5%, and you're still going to have some minerals left. So it's very difficult to go into a concentration level that would be beyond 90%. I mean, you could add something, some blends and mixtures, but purely from the standpoint of ultra-filtering your milk, you have a technical limit of 90%. That's why this is the option.
Let me explain very quickly what this option does, because we are aware of the consequences. The U.S. would join you. On this issue about NAFTA or not NAFTA, whether it applies or doesn't apply, the U.S. would be in a tough position to challenge Canada harmonizing its system to be exactly identical to theirs.
New Zealanders, who are the exporters, if you will, and who would have lost the right that was confirmed by our own Canadian tribunal, might challenge you at the WTO. You may end up in an article 28 one way or the other, from a WTO standpoint. I don't want to speculate, but that is the potential situation. That's why we thought article 28 was a cleaner approach overall.