Bill C-39 Committee on Oct. 9th, 2026

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to say that I agree with what you suggested in terms of next steps. I don't think it's necessary to give ourselves rigid deadlines that could actually constrain us further. I agree with what Mr. Ste‑Marie said.

The important thing today, I think, is to agree on the preliminary witness list—which can include Minister Dabrusin—by noon, so we can invite witnesses and meet with them on October 19, and to agree on the timeline for the final witness list. It could be October 15, next week. Then I think it's imperative that we come to an agreement today on the press release we're going to issue to tell people they can submit briefs.

Mr. Albas, you suggested October 29. I think that's a good date. We have to do it as quickly as possible so that people—

[Gabriel Ste‑Marie]

I suggested October 22.

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Trois-Rivières, QC]

I think October 22 would work because we're going to get a lot of submissions. We consulted extensively over the summer. We got 26,000 briefs, and we met with 300 indigenous communities, I believe. A lot of work has already been done. Communities are engaged. The bill came out last week, so people know about it. We just need to give the analysts time to go through the reports and submissions, and ourselves a bit of time to read them as well. I think October 22 is probably a good date if we stick with that. I am ready and we are ready to see what the committee wants to do.

I think the three most important things to agree on today are the deadline for the witness list, including a preliminary list today, another date next week and the press release—whether it's October 22. I think we can deal with the rest when we meet on October 19. We can revisit the deadlines then, because we'll know who the witnesses are and the briefs will have started coming in. That's my suggestion.

I appreciate that my opposition colleagues want an hour each, but we have a limited amount of time. We're talking about 20 hours or so of meetings, even though we haven't set specific parameters. There is some flexibility. With about 20 hours, we won't have that much time left to hear from witnesses if we spend four hours with the ministers.

That's what I think.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Ms. Desrochers.

I have Mr. Gourde next.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I agree with my colleague Gabriel Ste‑Marie and Ms. Desrochers that we need more time to provide the witness list. I repeat, we want to co-operate with the government on this very important bill, which will reshape the entire Canadian economy for generations. However, it is also worthwhile to hear from the ministers and question them. At the end of the day, they are the big players in this bill.

If we need to add time at the end, we're available to do that. We have a lot of time to work on this bill. If we need to add a meeting or two, we will. If we have to sit when the House isn't sitting, we will. This is important. We can't rush through the study. Canadians are watching. They deserve the best version of this bill, and we are going to do what's best for Canadians.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you.

I have Mr. Albas, Mr. Lake and then Ms. Desrochers.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Chair, I would reiterate that, first of all, the Conservatives have been in discussions with the Liberals. The Liberals have indicated that they would like to have a timely study of this, which we totally understand. We believe more needs to be done, because the government's current record on building new infrastructure has been subpar. We would like to see this change, but in order to do that.... It seems that the main issue is the ministers' attendance.

First, all the dates we have, we came to in collaboration with the Liberals. Second, Mr. Chair, we've allowed the flexibility for you to make changes as necessary, as long as they're in line with the overall stated objectives we've laid out. Third, this motion calls on those specific ministers, because we have an intense desire to do that.

If the Liberals want to simply dictate who comes and when they come, and it doesn't matter what the opposition has to say, I take issue with that. I believe we should argue, and we will continue to for as long as it takes, that we're being eminently reasonable by drawing a line in the sand. Having a minister come on a bill the Prime Minister has described as the “most consequential” in decades.... To me, an hour with a minister who will have one-third of the responsibilities for the bill, eventually, if it passes both chambers, is eminently reasonable.

Asking Minister MacKinnon, whom I've seen at the transportation committee along with Mr. Kelloway, to come for a simple hour to discuss about 100 pages is, totally reasonable. Having the minister of employment come and talk about an issue—currently, there seems to be a real issue in the labour world around that particular section—for an hour is eminently reasonable.

I would ask Liberal members to take a look at the motion and see that there is flexibility for the chair. This allows for a timely, orderly study, but it also allows the Conservatives, and I hope, eventually, Bloc members the opportunity to do our jobs, which is to function as a challenge to the government. It's to make sure that the gaps in their thinking and priorities...and get answers for Canadians who want some accountability.

This is not a one-party state. I really hope the government-side members will simply say they are being offered a reasonable timeline. They need to allow their ministers to come and talk about their portfolios.

I've been here for quite a while, Mr. Chair, and I've never seen, when an opposition party lays out reasonable measures.... If I were on the government side, I would jump on it.

I would ask, Mr. Chair, that you be mindful of the fact that you are here to serve the committee, and this is the committee's first foray into asking you how to do the job. If you believe something needs to be amended because you think it is out of order.... As I said, we've already given you the mandate to make changes wherever you need to, as long as they're justified to the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

All right. Thank you, Mr. Albas.

I'm going to suspend for a moment.

I want to say that's a great moment of self-awareness, saying this is the first time you've seen the opposition propose something reasonable in this way, because throughout my entire time, you've been in opposition.

I'm kidding, of course, Mr. Albas.

Thank you. We'll suspend for a moment.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

I call the meeting back to order.

Mr. Lake is next, followed by Ms. Desrochers and then Mr. Ste-Marie.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Leduc—Wetaskiwin, AB]

I wanted to weigh in on this. I made a couple of notes as the conversation was happening.

To the Chair, you mentioned the idea of “subject to the ministers' availability”, which we hear fairly regularly in committee. I did a bit of math. Between now and the end of the week of the 19th, there are 336 hours. We're looking for one hour from each of these ministers. I would presume that the ministers' offices can find an hour for their ministers to appear before the committee. I'm glad to hear from them any time between the 19th and the 23rd. There's a whole week.

We should be able to resolve the availability issue, given that the Prime Minister has referred to this legislation as the “most consequential” legislation in decades. I'm sure he'll free up his ministers to appear before our committee to deal with this.

Ms. Desrochers brought up the 20 hours or whatever for the committee to study this. The point I would make is that ministers are pretty important to this conversation. If we're going to get the most out of witness testimony, hearing from the ministers who are directly involved in the legislation for an hour each will be pretty important. If we could extend it from 20 hours in total to 23 hours in total, it would ensure that we give enough time to each of the ministers to weigh in.

I think 104 of the clauses are related to Minister Dabrusin's portfolio. There are 300-plus clauses. I think 57 are related to Minister Hajdu's portfolio. To have each of them on their own for an hour before the committee, taking questions and having the chance to explain the portions of the legislation related to their portfolios, would be pretty important for Canadians, broadly, to have an understanding of this legislation, which the Prime Minister refers to as the “most consequential” legislation in decades.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. Lake.

Go ahead, Ms. Desrochers.

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We have listened carefully to our colleagues. We held discussions during the adjournment of the sitting and, in a spirit of co-operation—even though we did not necessarily intend to adopt a motion this morning—I believe we had agreed on what the chair proposed earlier, namely to reach a consensus on the key points and deadlines to guide the next steps.

However, my colleagues prefer to adopt a motion. We have certainly heard the concerns raised by our colleague Mr. Ste‑Marie, of the Bloc Québécois, regarding the flexibility of the timetables and the importance of ensuring that witnesses are heard, while allowing sufficient time for organizations and witnesses to submit written submissions.

I thank Mr. Lake for the maths lesson. However, I would point out that there are still a limited number of hours available if we are to proceed swiftly.

As you said right at the start of your remarks, Mr. Albas, we want to proceed swiftly on this motion, but we want to do things properly. So, I think it is more useful for the group to devote as much time as possible to the witnesses.

I would therefore like to propose some limited amendments to the text you have submitted so that we can move forward. It would be a great shame to spend all the time we have today on this and to start from very rigid positions. For our part, we are in a spirit of flexibility.

Mr. Chair, I would like to propose amendments to Mr. Albas's motion. May I continue?

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

I'm sorry, Ms. Desrochers. I was carrying on conversations at the same time.

If you could repeat what you said, I'll get to your point of order. Repeat the last part of what you said so I understand it.

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Chair, what I said was that we would be prepared to work towards reaching agreement on a motion and adopting it today in order to be effective. If we could start in this way, I think it would set the committee's work on the right track. It would also take into account the concerns of our colleague from the Bloc Québécois.

So, I would like to propose amendments to the motion put forward by Mr. Albas. I can read them out to you now, or we can send them via—

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Before that, I would like to raise a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

What is your point of order, Mr. Ste-Marie?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

To ensure compliance, given that I had proposed amendments, if there is a friendly agreement between the parties, I would like to withdraw them so that Ms. Desrochers can propose hers.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Okay. I say this at my own peril, but I think we're all trying to get to the same place. We're trying to figure out which dates work for everybody.

Technically, we can deal with your proposed amendment, dispose of that, move on to another amendment and then get back to the main motion in whatever form that ultimately takes.

I'm proposing that it's easier if we can discuss the dates that are being bandied around the table by the three parties and try to land on that without wasting a whole lot of time on procedure. I think we're this close, so I'm throwing that out there, if people are prepared to do it that way.

We can at least hear what Ms. Desrochers has to say before you say no. Can we do that?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Chair, there are amendments. If she's going to make a subamendment to the amendment, I welcome that procedurally, but we've just spent the last 15 minutes waiting for the Liberal Party to figure out what they are proposing. They continue to seem not to want to have the ministers come in.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

We don't know that, Mr. Albas, until we've heard the proposed subamendment. If you'll indulge me just for a moment—

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

If it's a subamendment, we'll hear it.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

—let's hear what the subamendment is, and then we can carry on.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

If it's a subamendment....

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Well, we won't know until we hear it.

Ms. Desrochers, go ahead.

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I shall speak in French, Mr. Albas, as I have the text in French in front of me. My amendment proposes that the committee invite the following ministers, accompanied by civil servants, to appear before the committee, with two ministers at a time over two two-hour panels: the Honourable Steven MacKinnon, Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons; the Honourable Julie Dabrusin, Minister of the Environment, Climate Change and Nature; the Honourable Patty Hajdu, Minister of Jobs and Families and Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario; and we are adding the Honourable Dominic LeBlanc, President of the King's Privy Council for Canada and Minister responsible for Canada–U.S. Trade, Intergovernmental Affairs, Internal Trade and One Canadian Economy. I also move that “for one hour each” be deleted from the motion, because we want to ensure that the ministers will be here.