Ghislain Lebel

[Committees Of The House, February 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, could the hon. member perhaps explain what he was referring to, if it was not the British North America Act of 1867? I would like to know under what legislation these provisions were made. I ask this with all due respect for the hon. member from the Liberal Party. I was unaware until now that such legislation existed.

[Committees Of The House, February 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member to clarify what he just said about renegotiating grandfather clauses in the Constitution of 1867. Perhaps he could explain what he had in mind.

[United States Entrance Fee, February 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I think the Governor General's cocktail party has gone to some people's heads.

However, I would like the minister to get up again and tell us what retaliatory measures he intends to take if the U.S. government insists on imposing a tax which would affect Canadians crossing the border? I want the minister to answer like a man.

[United States Entrance Fee, February 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. By proposing in its budget to levy a tax or entrance fee of $3 per vehicle and $1.50 per person entering the United States, the American government stirred up unanimous opposition in Canada and in Quebec, where such a tax is felt to be utterly contrary to the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Can the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell us how the U.S. government reacted to the protest made by Canada through its embassy in Washington?

[Department Of Canadian Heritage Act, December 15th, 1994]

Start with liking Quebecers.

[Access To Information, December 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in reply to two questions I recently asked in this House about the new regulations increasing bonds to be posted by customs brokers, the Minister of National Revenue referred me to the Canadian Association of Customs Brokers which seemingly supported his approach in this matter.

First of all, let me say to the minister that the picture is somewhat different from what he told us then. On November 24, the association held a meeting where 883 members gave their opinion on the advisability of these new regulations. The results of the vote were 803 against the regulations, 74 in favour and 6 abstentions. Because larger brokerage firms have multiple vot-

ing rights, the final result was 135 against the regulations, 141 in favour and 7 abstentions.

A study conducted by Brian Hull and Associates, a well-known economist from Ottawa, for the coalition of small and medium size brokers, shows that the new regulations unduly favour the larger brokerage firms. If they were to be subjected to the same standards as smaller brokers, they would see their security bill jump $1 million in one case, and between $150,000 and $180,000 in other cases, while they now pay only $30,000 for a maximum security of $10 million.

We can see the advantage given to these larger brokerage firms by this new administrative policy. Does the minister know that small and medium size brokers, those who broker 20,000 imports or less per year create 2,500 direct jobs in Canada and that their disappearance by a stroke of his pen would have a dramatic effect?

Does the minister know that with these new standards only 19 brokers would remain in Canada thanks to the privilege he would be giving them by instituting a ceiling of $10 million for the security they must post.

Let me quote the conclusions of Mr. Hull's study.

The effect of this new ruling by Revenue Canada for account security and the disproportionate burden of its impact as between large and small firms is to place the Government of Canada in violation of the basic principles of conduct on which the Competition Act of Canada is founded.

The effect of the new formula is to, first, impede the efficiency and adaptability of the Canadian economy; second, restrict opportunities for Canadian competition in global markets, while discriminating on behalf of foreign competition; third, seriously impede the opportunity for small and medium sized enterprises to participate in the Canadian economy; and, fourth, to reduce the choice of competitive prices and services available to Canadians.

A $10 million security on a monthly invoice of $250 million is only 4 per cent, while a $1.8 million security for smaller brokers is 100 per cent of their monthly invoice.

Does the minister, who is trying so hard to protect importers, realize that large brokerage firms are just as likely as small ones to go bankrupt? I would even go so far as to say that large diversified companies, with interests in transportation, storage, handling, run a higher risk. Take real estate development, for example, Campeau Corporation, the Reichman brothers and others went under before all the smaller companies disappeared. In the insurance business, did some large companies not go bankrupt before many small ones?

If the minister is really committed to protecting the public, here is my suggestion: First, he should go back to the formula where everyone had ten days to pay duties and taxes, the way it is in the United States and the way it was in Canada before these interim payments, which are at the root of all our problems, were instituted. He should keep security at 100 per cent of monthly billings and make all brokers, large and small, equally responsible.

[Customs Brokers, December 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, should the minister not demonstrate the most elementary common sense and reconsider this decision, if he wishes to see these businesses and the hundreds of jobs they represent survive?

[Customs Brokers, December 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue.

To comply with the new regulation that takes effect on January 16, 145 of the 269 customs brokers who operate in Canada have applied to Reed Stenhouse, a Toronto company, for the surety bond required by Revenue Canada. As of today, 32 of these customs brokers have been denied bonds, in other words, they have been put out of business. Another twenty or so have yet to receive a reply.

Does the minister realize that this new policy of requiring customs brokers to obtain high surety bonds has already resulted in the loss of at least 250 jobs, and that the losses will be much more substantial if he persists on this course?

[Customs Brokers, December 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the minister knows very well that members of that association, including the large American companies, have the right to one vote for each office they operate in different districts. Therefore, the process is totally undemocratic.

Does the Minister of National Revenue recognize that if the proposed regulations were to be implemented in their present form, it could force several small independent customs brokers out of business and that would mean several thousand jobs lost for Canadians?

[Customs Brokers, December 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. The Department of National Revenue is about to implement, in January 1995, new regulations which will penalize the small customs brokerage

firms. They will require surety bonds of up to $10 million for the goods they clear through customs.

Given the very negative impact of that decision on the existence of small customs brokers, does the Minister of National Revenue intend to answer their demands in the near future?