Debates of May 4th, 1994

Canada Business Corporations Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

I think that is the first time the relevance rule has been raised in this Parliament, as least when I have been in the chair, and it is a rule that the parliamentary secretary will know is observed more in the breach than in the respect.

Perhaps the hon. member who had the floor could speak to the point, that is the bill presently before us.

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to demonstrate that the government should have other priorities than Bill C-12 and should not tackle such things as reviewing the pharmaceutical legislation the way they have been doing. That is the point I want to make, and they are not through hearing about it. As far as I am concerned, I am not through talking about it.

Bill C-22, which was tabled before Bill C-91 and cleared the air, was a success. Between 1987 and 1991, companies invested almost one billion dollars, half of that amount in Quebec, to such an extent that in 1991, research reached 9.7 per cent of sales in 1991 compared to the 3 per cent rate under Mr. Trudeau. While this is a marked improvement, it does not make up for lost ground.

How can a country complaining because it is lagging behind in research by contrast to other countries and also because it is not part of some high tech industries manage without one of the major high tech industries? The red book recognizes that our research is lagging behind. I will come back to that later.

We will not give up on the issue of pharmaceutical patents, which is critically important for Quebec. In fact, the pharmaceutical industry typefies Quebec industry. It is one of our finest industries, and we will not let the lobbying of members from Ontario, especially from Toronto, lower Quebec economy to such an extent.

I think that something happened last week, when my colleague, the member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie, quoted Confucius when responding to the minister of Industry who himself had quoted Shakespeare, a bit nastily, I must say.

The member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie quoted Confucius and said: "Culture is like jam; the less you have, the more you spread it". That struck me. I thought about it last week, if I remember well, while working on my lawn. I wondered why my colleague for Laurier-Sainte-Marie had quoted Confucius in those terms. After having given this matter much thought, I finally realized that it contained a message, a subliminal message. There was something symbolic about it. By "jam", he meant "in a jam". In a jam because of the failure of the government. Failure, especially if you make a report card after six months. I believe the government is celebrating that anniversary of its official and legal victory.

If you take a look at the situation, I think "in a jam" is the right expression. Let us recall, for instance, the issue of cigarette smuggling. Without the determination of the Official Opposition, we might still be discussing this whole issue. In the meantime, smuggling was flourishing in Quebec, resulting in loss of revenues for the government-which, in itself, was terrible enough. Also, because of civil disobedience, a whole climate was created where everything was challenged-our institutions, the role of the government, respect of the law, even social peace.

The government argued that there was no evidence of smuggling. It took weeks, but the opposition did not let go, and finally the government took the necessary measures.

Take another example, the Collège militaire royal de Saint-Jean. Here again, I want to show you-in case the member does not understand -that there are more important things to do than discussing minor bills such as this one. And, in our opinion, when the government does act, it does not necessarily act in the right way.

[Joe Fontana, Liberal, London East, ON]

Time.

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am allowed 40 minutes.

When the government acts, we know the results.

[An hon. member]

A fine mess, a jam.

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Yes, the military college was another fine mess. The Liberal government is forced to admit they have neither the desire nor the money to maintain the only francophone military training institution in America.

In tomorrow's Canada, in order to receive military training, francophones will have to go to a most anglophone city-which is all right-that has no facilities to make them feel welcome. The government say they have no choice. They have neither the desire nor the money to go on. That gives an idea of the Canada in which Quebecers will have to live, if they decide to remain a part of it.

What can we say about social program reform besides saying that again the government is in a jam? When one is obviously and deliberately taking it out not on unemployment but on the unemployed, not on poverty but on the poor, when the only thing we know about the government is that they will consult for two years-only to cut $7.5 billion in social programs at the end of the consultations, the situation is serious! When it is the unemployed and not unemployment, and the poor as opposed to poverty that are attacked, I say we are in a jam!

As for manpower training, the federal government stubbornly wants to keep jurisdiction over it. However, everybody in Quebec, employers as well as union leaders, school board members, Department of Education or Quebec government officials, whether federalist or not, everybody agrees that vocational training should be entirely under Quebec jurisdiction. But no, the government, for reasons known only to itself, is stubbornly hanging on to manpower training, after a two-year study involving goodness knows who, whereas everyone in Quebec is saying that it should withdraw from this area.

The last issue has to do not only with the government opposite, but with the federal system as well. I will not hide the fact that for sovereigntists like myself, it is very good news indeed to know what the rules of the game are in this country. The Supreme Court has just given us some idea of what they are with its ruling on telephony and communications where it said that however distinct Quebec might be, it had no rights over this field.

[Joe Fontana, Liberal, London East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know that this member may not have much respect for this institution but I am sure he would have respect for the Speaker.

I thought I heard the Speaker give some guidance to this member and ask him to stick to the subject matter which is Bill C-12. That is what we are discussing today. Opposition day is tomorrow. There are plenty of opportunities in this House for this member to speak about anything else he would like.

Surely Canadians, taxpayers, who are watching this institution would expect that the hon. member would respect the wishes of the Chair and stick to the subject matter we are discussing today, Bill C-12, and not ramble on about everything that this House has done or will do in the foreseeable future.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I ask for your guidance for this member who just does not seem to get it.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Hon. colleagues, as I said a while ago, it is extremely difficult to say whether a comment pertains to the subject matter before the House or whether it does not. Therefore, I would ask all members for their co-operation in complying with the Standing Orders and speaking to this bill. I think that all members can appreciate how very difficult this situation can be for the Chair.

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Let me congratulate my colleague on his intellectual rigour. It shows that he must not come to the House often. In fact, I have not often seen him here myself. Mr. Speaker, you will surely agree with me that it is difficult to discuss this bill for 40 minutes, given that it is a slim piece of legislation and, as the minister said, a rather dull and boring one at that. Furthermore, unless he talks nonsense, a member has a right to use his speaking time to discuss subjects which he deems to be timely.

As I was saying, the Supreme Court handed down a ruling concerning telephony and communications which gives the federal government full jurisdiction. It is the federal system which is at issue here and I will not hide the fact that Quebecers are deeply interested in this subject.

The federal system is at issue here. To say that telecommunications-telephony, for example-come under exclusive federal jurisdiction is to deny Quebec's distinctiveness, one of the key points of the Charlottetown Agreement, which by the way was unanimously rejected.

In other words, for the hon. member's information, as Quebecers and Canadians must ponder the situation, I hope that Quebecers will realize that if they ever decide, in a referendum, to remain within Canada as a province, they will have to accept centralization.

That is the conclusion to be drawn from such measures. Decisions concerning the military college, social program reform, manpower training, telephony and communications all reflect a growing tendency on the part of the federal government to centralize major powers in Ottawa, and to consider provincial governments henceforth as regional governments. This is the context in which Quebecers will be deciding, in a referendum, whether or not to keep Quebec in Confederation.

In the time I have left, I want to come back more sensibly-my colleague will be pleased-to the issue of Bill-C-12. I said earlier that the government must have better things to do and you only have to look at all the statements and the promises of the red book to see what I mean. I want to quote what it says about research and development, technology, small and medium-sized businesses, and economic development. On page 52, it reads: "It would also create a climate that encourages pre-competitive research in various sectors of the Canadian economy. A Liberal government will further strengthen R and D, especially in small and medium-sized business, by encouraging technology partnerships between Canadian universities, research institutions, and the private sector that emphasize the commercial applications of research and development". For your information, Mr. Speaker, that is precisely what is going on in the pharmaceutical industry.

Again, the red book says: "A Liberal government will continue to support basic research, including the provision of stable funding for the granting councils, the National Research Council, and the Networks of Centres of Excellence".

It is so nice that I could go on and on. It is so very interesting but that goes back to last fall. Since then-and that is the complaint I have against this government-the government has not kept its promise-for which it was elected by Canadians from Ontario and the Maritimes, among others-but it introduced minor measures like Bill C-12. As I said at the outset, Mr. Speaker, it is a waste of time, a waste of energy and a waste of money to deal with such an issue.

Reading the red book and seeing the negligence of this government, I am led to say that it is more and more obvious, and absolutely necessary, that people take charge of their own destiny all across Canada, and particularly in Quebec, in every region of Quebec.

I want to tell you that as far as people of my riding, the riding of Trois-Rivières, are concerned, they have already started to do so. This is wonderfully exemplified by the re-opening of the former CIP Forest Products plant, which had closed down, causing the loss of 1,200 jobs, if memory serves me well. This plant has just re-opened, thanks to the involvement of the Fonds de solidarité des travailleurs du Québec; and if it has been re-opened, we must understand that it is because its workers had never given up. They made all the necessary representations, they made everybody aware that it was unacceptable that such a large plant, in a city like mine, Trois-Rivières, could close down for good. They managed to get the Fonds de solidarité involved. I take this opportunity to congratulate them for that.

There are other areas where people of my riding have understood and are doing something. First of all, at the CEGEP of Trois-Rivières, which is famous for two things, its Centre for Metallurgical Technology and its Centre for Pulp and Paper Technology, two specialized centres which are increasingly

serving the needs of metallurgical as well as pulp and paper industries all across Quebec.

And secondly, at the Université du Québec in Trois-Rivières, there are also people with a sense of imagination and vision who have set up a research group on small and medium-sized businesses to make sure that more universities know the problems of such businesses in order to better train young people and give assi

In a field which has a very bright future, there is also a hydrogen research centre which, you have to admit, is a high-tech field. This hydrogen research centre is attracting more and more attention and, given the importance of this product for the future, could have a remarkable development in the coming years.

Lastly, I would like to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that l'Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières is the only institution in all of Canada to offer a doctorate program in paper engineering. This is another illustration of our region's capacity to show its resourcefulness and its determination to take charge and make its presence felt more and more in Quebec as well as abroad.

In closing, and my friend will be happy, I would like to talk about Bill C-12 and say that we all know that it is the first part of a two-part law, the second part of which will come in three years and address much more important issues related to the operation of small and medium-sized businesses, like the responsibility of directors, insider trading, for example, and take-over bids.

It seems that these issues, and the government is still consulting, will be addressed in two or three years. The position of the Official Opposition is that we cannot oppose such a bill; although it is uninspiring, it is important in its technical aspects, and we understand that it makes technical changes which should improve the operation of our businesses. Consequently, the Official Opposition is for this bill, in spite of everything.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Okanagan Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will address my remarks to the contents of Bill C-12. I resist corroborating the opinion that was expressed by the member opposite that if the bill is really not a major bill then it should not receive major debating time. If there are major points to be made then let us make them. However we have to be very careful not to abuse our privileges.

Bill C-12 as I understand it represents amendments to the Canada Business Corporations Act which will govern approximately 190,000 Canadian federal business corporations, including over 50 per cent of Canada's top 500 corporations.

This is the first phase of amendments designed to improve the competitiveness of Canadian business, simplify filing and record keeping requirements and certain corporate governance procedures and allow for technological innovation. The bill also begins the process of modernizing federal corporate law.

Amendments to Bill C-12 are purported to be of a largely technical nature. While this is in essence true we feel certain amendments could have ramifications far beyond the technical level.

We applaud those amendments to Bill C-12 that will result in simplifying filing and record keeping requirements and certain corporate governance procedures, allow for the technological innovation and better service to all regions of Canada, enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the administration of the CBCA and clarify the language of the act through changes to the French and English versions and through the use of better terminology. It will promote good governance in corporate enterprises-at least that is what the intent is-facilitate efficient and flexible business management while protecting investors, including minority shareholders, and foster a fair and efficient marketplace.

It is purported to provide flexibility for corporations to act quickly and with less expense to unforeseen events by permitting current directors to appoint a limited number of directors in the time between shareholder meetings, if the corporation's bylaws permit that to happen.

We recognize that these measures are part of the government's commitment in the speech from the throne to focus on small and medium sized businesses. We encourage measures that are designed to improve the competitiveness of Canadian business. By encouraging internal trade within Canada and by helping business pursue an active international trade policy, we can place our federal corporations in a better competitive position.

We would be pleased if the reforms that are currently within the amendments to the CBCA accomplish all of these objectives. Certain provisions however require closer scrutiny and should be noted.

First, the provision to eliminate public financial disclosure for larger privately held corporations may allow certain public companies to transfer assets to private companies under their control and thereby avoid financial disclosures of these private subsidiaries.

Sections 16 and 17 regarding financial disclosure, while apparently not significant to the minister, being simply of a

technical nature, should be recognized as a substantive departure from the current provisions. They are not technicalities as suggested by the minister. They should be studied by the committee with a promise to consider moving them to the second part of the amendments to this act.

Notice is hereby given as well that two other matters are of concern to members of our party and will be drawn to the attention of the committee studying the bill. They are, first, the new section, 258.2, which allows the director to exempt notices or documents from having to be sent to the director in the prescribed circumstances. This is potentially a very wide provision if the governor in council chooses to prescribe wide circumstances.

We have been advised by department officials that this is intended to apply only to cases where documents are publicly available elsewhere. To make sure this is the sole reason, an amendment to that effect is required. The amendment could be something like this: "If a notice or document is required under this act to be sent to the director must be made public by some other provision of or made pursuant to another act of Parliament other than this act, the director may, by order made subject to the condition that the other provision has been complied with and any other conditions the director may consider appropriate, exempt the notice or document from the requirement under this act that it be sent to the director".

The second amendment that ought to be looked at refers to section 8(2). This section provides a previously unregulated period for which records must be kept. The minister mentioned that presently the act is silent on this and that we need to recognize under the Income Tax Act and the provisions thereof that claims to be made by the minister may be made for six years back and the limitation on actions in contracts in most and maybe all provinces is six years after the cause for the action arises.

In light of these provisions it seems strange to have a six year minimum, as longer record retention is generally mandated by other legislation and by common sense. It would appear to be better either to leave out this provision or to avoid redundancy and to have a longer period, say eight or ten years. Eight years would certainly cover the income tax provision and meet most contract litigation needs.

There is a second reason why the provision which will see record keeping reduced to six years may be inadequate. Litigation procedures may be started after six years so the requirement should be, in our opinion, probably something like ten years.

The second phase of the reforms that are being talked about here should also be referred to at this time. We are alerted that consultations for phase two reforms have apparently started already. They includes issues like the liability of corporate directors; shareholder communications both between the corporation and the shareholders and also among shareholders; citizenship and residency requirements currently imposed on boards of directors; financial assistance granted by the corporation to directors, officers, shareholders and others; and governing insider trading and takeover bids. Each of these areas are very substantive in nature and will require very careful and detailed examination and study.

Their importance to the federal business corporations and to Canada's competitiveness is clear. The expansion of directors' liability may be leading some qualified people for example to refuse board appointments. For a corporation to be successful, qualified people must be willing to serve on boards and once there to take bold steps in order to compete in the global marketplace.

We also encourage commitment to continued reform. It is absolutely amazing this particular act has not been revised over the last 20 years. If we compare business practices of 20 years ago to today and the competition that exists out there I find it almost unbelievable that the act still fits. It does not fit too well and that is why it is before us today. So we are encouraging continued reform.

The proposed amendments require the minister to submit within three years of this bill receiving royal assent a report to Parliament on the provisions and operation of the act, including recommendations for further changes to the law.

We heard the hon. minister say about an hour ago that within 18 months he expects to bring this forward. I certainly would encourage him to meet that deadline.

In general we support the objectives of the bill. We recognize the government's efforts to meet one of its promises as set out in the speech from the throne. However we would caution the minister from viewing all of the amendments to this bill as technicalities. While in some instances this is essentially true there are other areas, as demonstrated in the text of my speech so far, that require closer and more cautious scrutiny.

I am confident that once this bill is referred to committee, government members will agree that some safeguards must be implemented to protect shareholders, the corporate structure and finally the Canadian marketplace. Once this is accomplished I believe Bill C-12 will meet its objectives of promoting a fair and efficient marketplace and an economic climate that is conducive to sustained growth and job creation.

We look forward to the referral of this bill to the committee. We will take the opportunity then to ensure that Bill C-12 meets its objectives in a manner satisfactory to all sides of the House.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee.)

Railway Safety Act

[Doug Peters, Liberal, for Minister of Transport]

moved that Bill C-21, an act to amend the Railway Safety Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Joe Fontana, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to present for second reading a bill to amend the Railway Safety Act. I understand there is agreement that we do all three readings hopefully before the hour of adjournment.

The bill, which will help reduce accidents and fatalities associated with Canada's railway system, will create an offence for trespassing on federally regulated railway property.

A similar prohibition in the Railway Act was revoked by proclamation of the Railway Safety Act in 1989. By reintroducing the prohibition we will put teeth into the Railway Safety Act by giving railway companies a strong deterrent.

Effective and enforceable legislation in conjunction with public education should help reduce trespassing related incidents on railway lands. The three e s to enhanced railway safety are education, engineering and enforcement. I am pleased that this enforcement initiative will enable law officers, especially railway police who are empowered to enforce federal legislation, to charge trespassers found on railway lines.

This legislation is clearly in the interest of public safety. Trespassing on railway property is one of the most frequent causes of fatalities and injuries related to railway operations. The incidence of accidents to trespassers is increasing. In fact, last year for the first time the number of trespassing fatalities surpassed the number of lives lost at level crossings in Canada.

An estimated 100 people are struck by trains each year while trespassing on railway right of ways. Almost half of these people are killed and the remainder are seriously injured. Many of these people are habitual trespassers, and an unfortunate number of accidents involve young children and students. These are tragic statistics.

The government has introduced this bill as a means of reducing the terrible consequences that can result from trespassing on railway lands. Trespassing commonly occurs near schools, parks, recreational facilities and commercial or residential locations which have high pedestrian traffic, urban areas such as Montreal and Toronto.

The reasons for trespassing include shortcuts to commercial establishments, schools and residential areas, and the use of railway tracks by children as play areas. Unfortunately a railway right of way is a dangerous time saver and far too often becomes a deadly playground for young children.

There is also a major problem of homeless people using railway property as living or resting areas. Many trespassers make use of railway property with total disregard for their personal safety and this is of major concern to Transport Canada.

Fencing and highly visible signage put in place by railways have not been sufficiently effective in discouraging trespassers. Let me emphasize that the penalty provisions contained in the act are broad enough, up to $5,000 on summary conviction, to create a major deterrent to repeat offences.

Reinstatement of the prohibition against trespassing will assist police in reducing the incidence of this dangerous practice on railway property and hence the number of accidents and fatalities. The onus for enforcement would rest with the railways through their police forces and there would be no demand on government's resources as a result of this amendment.

The original anti-trespassing provision in the Railway Act was not included in the Railway Safety Act when the latter legislation was proclaimed in January 1989 because it was felt the matter could be addressed effectively through subsequent regulations.

A review by the justice department has determined that due to the nature of the prohibition, the provision should be established as part of the legislation itself and not as a regulation. Transport Canada has worked with railways to improve safety in areas of heavy trespass; measures such as increased railway policing, barbed wire top fences and other steps to discourage trespassers have been introduced as a result.

The amendment will not affect individuals such as native people and prospectors in remote areas who may need to cross tracks on a regular basis to reach trap lines and mineral claims. The purpose of the amendment is to enable railway police forces to take action in areas of continual and dangerous trespasses.

In conclusion, let me emphasize that the federal government is committed to working with the railways to reduce accidents and fatalities associated with Canada's railway system. This addition to the Railway Safety Act strengthens this important piece of legislation and in conjunction with public education should help remedy the problems of trespassing on railway lands.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Before recognizing the member for Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans I would like to ask the House if it is true the other parties have given unanimous consent for this bill to go through all three stages and be passed today?

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Official Opposition, I can confirm that there is such a consent.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Very well. Does the Reform Party concur?

Is the Reform Party prepared to give unanimous consent to the three stages passing today?

[Jim Gouk, Reform, Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC]

We are, Mr. Speaker.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as transport critic for the Official Opposition I would like to make a few comments on that bill. The first purpose of this very short, but nevertheless important bill is to ensure equivalence between the French and English versions of the Railway Safety Act. The second is to prohibit unlawful access to line works.

I can tell you that I am doubly concerned about this bill. In my riding of Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans there is a rail line that people at CN call Murray Bay. It goes from Limoilou, in Quebec City, to Clermont, in Charlevoix, which means that it crosses the entire riding.

While I was preparing my notes and rereading the bill, I remembered two events that I would like to share with you. They are tragic events for the families involved. Some two or two and a half years ago, in July, a 72-year old person was hit by a CN train in front of the Basilica in Sainte-Anne-de-Beaupré, in my riding. I can tell you that in a community the size of Sainte-Anne-de-Beaupré, such an accident creates quite a commotion.

The second event, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport just mentioned, involved a child. Last year, a six-year old boy, on his way home from school in Ville Vanier, in the Québec-Est riding, was hit by a Via Rail train which was going through a residential area at high speed. There was a coroner's inquest. We are still waiting for his conclusions. I can tell you that listening to the testimony of the father, who was deeply affected, was heart-rending-I do not mean that the mother was not affected-but the testimony of the father left me with extremely painful memories. I can tell you that, as the father of two children, I was shaken.

Having said this, I will refrain from saying that this is a good bill even if I would like to. I do not know if I am becoming a seasoned parliamentarian, but I do not dare say this was a good decision because when one does, there are usually ministers, whose good faith can be questioned, who are only too happy to mention in response to our questions: "But you said the government had made a good decision in this bill". So I will refrain from saying it. It is unfortunate that the rules of the British parliamentary system, and our friends opposite's vision of it, prevent me from saying this is a good bill, although I am tempted to say so.

I can tell you why I consider this bill important. By the way, short lines are referred to as C.F.I.L. in French. Perhaps I should take this opportunity to enlighten my francophone colleagues from other provinces. Instead of using the expression "short lines" in French, we should say C.F.I.L., which stands for chemin de fer à intérêt local . We know that railway companies, whether it is CN or CP, are more interested in selling lines.

I think that if we have local operators trying to make a profit with their line, it would be unfortunate to see railroad safety adversely affected. I feel that this bill, which guarantees a level of firmness regarding the implementation of certain safety standards, is a good piece of legislation. And as regards short lines, we, parliamentarians, will have to be watchful and ensure that operators comply with a minimum of safety rules.

To conclude, I want to say that the Bloc Quebecois did not object at all to the grouping together of all three reading stages. We support this bill, which is primarily aimed at increasing railroad safety.

I forgot to mention recreational use of land on which a railway line is situated. For example, in my riding, as in several others, snowmobiles make increasing use of that land. To some extent, this bill is to protect from themselves such people, who take unwarranted risks. As you know, the snowmobile was invented by a Quebecer, Mr. Bombardier. Its usefulness has been demonstrated and this invention has had an impact across Canada and throughout the world.

In conclusion, we support this bill.

[Jim Gouk, Reform, Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we recognize this as an important but non-contentious piece of housekeeping legislation designed to improve rail safety. As such the Reform Party supports the bill.

We support it going through three readings and we offer our co-operation in that regard. We do not wish to take up the House's time in any further debate or comment on it so that we can finish with the bill and get on to the more important and pressing matters coming before the House.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported and concurred in.)

[The Deputy Speaker]

When shall the bill be read the third time? By unanimous consent, now?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[David Anderson, Liberal, for the Minister of Transport]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

[Joe Fontana, Liberal, London East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Transport, I want to thank both parties for the quick passage of this very important bill.

It does show that when an important piece of legislation needs to be put through the House in fairly quick order all parties can move, and I want to thank them.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that I do not think things will go as fast with Bill C-22 on the privatization of the Pearson airport.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 6.30 p.m. the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.)