Roy MacLaren

[Human Rights, February 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the centre has already set up a committee to look further into the questions the hon. member has raised. I believe in the first instance they will be dealt with in that way.

[Aluminium Industry, February 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thought I had just answered that question.

The situation with regard to Russia today is one of a present glut of a stockpile. The agreement among the countries involved is intended to look toward orderly marketing of that stockpile.

In the year 1996 and beyond when the South African aluminium smelter comes on stream, there should be in place a more standard, orthodox market for aluminium. We do not anticipate at that time the sort of glut that is being encountered today.

[Aluminium Industry, February 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the contract in South Africa with SNC Lavalin is for the design of an aluminium smelter. It will not come on stream for a number of years, by which time the present excess amounts of stockpile in Russia should have been absorbed by the market.

[Beer Industry, February 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in the jargon of the trade world, the member opposite has raised "beer one" and now he raises "beer two". Beer two is a problem with the United States. The GATT has ruled in Canada's favour in that instance. The United States has responded by saying this is largely a matter for states to implement. However the states have been tardy in so doing. In fact only one of a total of 39 has so far taken any action.

There are also, however, some actions that the U.S. federal government itself should be taking. We have been pressing the United States hard and consistently to implement the GATT panel ruling.

[Beer Industry, February 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I stated the other day in response to a similar question that it is the federal government's policy to support the provincial governments in their GATT consistent beer practices. We shall continue to do so.

We have worked with the Government of Quebec both in Washington and in Canada to ensure that its policy of a minimal price for beer in Quebec is recognized as GATT consistent and therefore compatible with the NAFTA.

[Softwood Lumber Industry, February 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, under both the FTA and the NAFTA there have

been problems of continuing export harassment by the United States. When we decided to continue our consideration of NAFTA we sought solutions to these problems of continuing harassment.

It is for that reason we put in place trilateral groups to work out agreements on anti-dumping and on subsidies so that these opportunities for the United States to continue its harassment of Canadian exports are either reduced or eliminated.

[Softwood Lumber Industry, February 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have met on several occasions with Mr. Kantor about the matter the hon. member raises. As he probably knows, two panels have recently reported in Canada's favour in the softwood lumber case. The possibility is now open to the United States to issue what is called an extraordinary challenge.

I have taken each occasion of my meeting with Mr. Kantor and with U.S. officials to say that we see no basis whatever for an extraordinary challenge.

[Beer Industry, February 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in the memorandum of understanding between Canada and the United States on beer which prevents a GATT-consistent minimal price practice. It is that policy that we have supported in three cases, British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec.

[Trade, January 25th, 1994]

Our intention, Mr. Speaker, throughout our discussions with the United States which have been conducted in part by my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, has been to protect the interests of Canadian grain farmers.

[Trade, January 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to send the hon. member that opinion.