Roy MacLaren

[Trade, May 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the member may want to recall a number of instances in which both the minister of agriculture and I have made clear to the United States administration our complete

disagreement with their allegation that Canadian grain exports to the United States are subsidized.

We have taken every occasion to underline that basic position to the United States administration, as recently as my visit to Washington last week. We explored with the United States administration how they came to make this contention. We have agreed to meet with them further on this subject toward the end of June.

However, as the hon. member will know, the United States has imposed on itself a deadline of mid-July for a resolution of this issue in one way or the other.

[Softwood Lumber, May 30th, 1994]

I would be glad to hear in rather more detail what the hon. member has in mind.

The point that we both share is that there is this possibility of ongoing harassment, as the member puts it, and since both industries, both sides of the border, are to a degree integrated and share common environmental problems, common supply problems, it must not be beyond our wit to come up with some better solution to our difficulties than this constant recycling of dispute settlement panels.

[Softwood Lumber, May 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we fully expect to win the next panel reviews. There are two more during the months of June and July and we expect to win them as well.

The point I had in mind was that it is always available to United States' interests to retrigger, to reinstitute the whole process for a fourth time. Surely it is in both our interest and the United States' interest to proceed on a basis that does not once again trigger this whole tiresome process.

[Customs Tariffs, May 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that Canada's position has been clearly conveyed to the United States on numerous occasions. That is that our belief, our conviction and our best legal advice without question is that the GATT rules take precedence over the NAFTA.

[Customs Tariffs, May 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we are not linking products in our discussions with the United States. We are not linking questions pertaining to the tariffication of dairy and poultry quotas with those of grain. We are not linking the rights of Canadian grain farmers to other issues. We are dealing with both issues quite separately.

[Trade, April 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the member can certainly have that assurance. I believe it is reflected in the stance we have taken in the negotiations, in the discussions during the past months. We will continue to protect in every respect the interests of Canadian grain farmers. We have done so in the past and we will continue to do so in any future discussions.

[Trade, April 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite will be aware of the fact that the Canadian International Trade Tribunal has already inquired into the question raised by the hon. member. It is indeed open to the Canadian apple growers to petition foreign anti-dumping investigation if that is their wish.

[Trade, April 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I had a little difficulty hearing the end of the question, therefore I am not sure what the question is. I can simply say that in the case of durum wheat, we certainly had the considerations he raised in mind during our negotiations with the United States and they will be very much in our mind in any further discussions.

[Trade, April 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I could give the hon. member a very long answer to that question.

Let me say very briefly that the wheat dispute with the United States is not under NAFTA. The Americans are pursuing what they believe to be their remedies under the GATT and not under NAFTA.

I would point out with regard to our stance in the Canada-U.S. discussions on wheat, we have taken positions that respect and guard the interests of Canadian grain farmers.

[Wheat Quotas, April 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we have indicated to the United States our position. We do not agree that its present position on a cap on wheat exports to the United States is acceptable to Canada.