(Return tabled) Question No. 286 Mr. Alex Atamanenko: With regard to the horse slaughter industry in Canada: (a) does the government know whether third party monitoring of video footage is occurring at Viandes Richelieu and Bouvry Exports and, if so, (i) what is the monitoring criteria, (ii) who is monitoring the footage, (iii) what actions, if any, have been taken as a result of observations, (iv) is footage monitoring to be a daily practice at this and other Canadian horse slaughter plants, (v) how many hours have been monitored, (vi) is footage archived and for how long, (vii) does the recording continuously loop over previous footage; (b) which tissue types and/or bodily fluids are targeted by the government when testing for phenylbuta ...[+++]zone and other drugs in horsemeat, (i) what percentage of drug testing is performed on equine organs (particularly kidney and liver) as opposed to other tissues, such as muscle, (ii) what is the exact methodology and what are the specific testing mechanisms used to detect phenylbutazone and other drugs in horsemeat; (c) what surveys or studies has the government undertaken or relied on to determine the number of overall horse owners and keepers that have administered to horses under their care, even once in the horse's lifetime, substances that are banned for human consumption, in (i) Canada, (ii) the United States (US); (d) what surveys or studies encompassing the overall horse population has the government undertaken or relied on to determine the percentage of veterinarians who routinely administer to horse patients under their care, at any time in the horse's lifetime, substances that are banned for use in food animals, in (i) Canada, (ii) the US; (e) what was the ratio between the number of horses and the number of prescriptions of substances banned for use in food animals at any time in their lifetime, issued by veterinarians to the overall horse population in (i) Canada, (ii) the US; (f) what were the results of European ...

For the purposes of point (a), subsidies shall be considered to be contingent in fact upon export performance when the facts demonstrate that the granting of a subsidy, without having been made legally contingent upon export performance, is in fact tied to actual or anticipated exportation or export earnings.

In this framework of the accomplishment of the comprehensive programme for the EU industry decided by the Industry Council on 22 April 1994, - Uruguay Round results should be implemented with a focus on the effective improvement of market access in third countries and on a balanced integration of sector into the WTO system, taking particularly into account the employment situation in the EU. - Member States' and the Community's industrial policy measures in the fields of exports to third countries, industrial cooperation, training for exports and fight against fraud should be particularly reinforced, taking advantage of new ...[+++]information technologies. - the strategies and adaptation measures applied by the enterprises in EU regions most affected by Uruguay Round results and other relevant factors should continue to be accompanied as far as necessary.

These procedures have led in certain cases to the export licence application being rejected.

The general ban on exports and the barriers which Tretorn placed in the way of parallel imports were not just the result of unilateral action on Tretorn's part: although they were not committed to paper, they formed an integral part of Tretorn's distribution or sales agreements, or in any event were the outcome of a concerted practice on the part of Tretorn and its distributors.

- EXPORTS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE - COUNCIL CONCLUSIONS "Referring to the results of the first meeting of the Contracting Parties to the Basle Convention in Uruguay and in particular Decisions I/16 and I/22 concerning the introduction of a total ban on shipments of hazardous waste to developing countries at the second meeting of the Parties; Referring also to the statement made by the Presidency on behalf of the European Community at the same meeting on 4 December 1992; Recalling that Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 already provides for ...[+++] a ban on all exports of waste for disposal to all countries except EFTA countries and establishes strict measures for all exports of hazardous waste for recovery to countries to which the OECD decision does not apply; Recalling that Article 39 of the Lomé Convention provides for a total ban on exports of waste to ACP States, THE COUNCIL DECIDES that the Community should support and actively work for the implementation and further development of the Basle Convention; NOTES that Article 17(1) of the Convention states that: "Any Party may propose amendments to this Convention ..". and that in accordance with Article 17(2) of the Convention any amendment to the Basle Convention must be forwarded to the Contracting Parties by the Interim Secretariat of the Convention not later than six months prior to the second meeting of the Contracting Parties, which is expected to take place in February/March 1994, and accordingly INVITES the Commission to examine any circumstances justifying the call for a total ban on exports of hazardous waste covered by the Basle Convention to developing countries and to submit appropriate proposals to it at the earliest possible date.