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

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—Papineau—Des Collines, QC]

The only thing we're changing in part (h) is that “October 22” is now “October 26”.

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

That was already changed.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—Papineau—Des Collines, QC]

That was already changed.

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

To be clear, Mr. Lauzon's amendment is not changing anything from part (b) to part (h). We don't need to read the whole thing.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—Papineau—Des Collines, QC]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

We're going to follow procedure strictly. We're not going to have a debate back and forth across the table. You've made your point of order.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—Papineau—Des Collines, QC]

Maybe I can go a bit slower for the interpreters, Mr. Chair.

I would like to return to the point that the committee would complete the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill during the week of November 16, 2026.

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

I have a point of order.

Because it was unclear about part (d) and part (e), if you're going to read the whole thing, can we go back to part (d) and start from there? I think part (d) was missed. Start from part (d) if you need to read the whole thing.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—Papineau—Des Collines, QC]

There's no more part (d).

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

You're taking part (d) out.

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

What about part (f)? You said “End”, not “Begin”.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Let's slow down rather than point of order this thing to death, which I understand is your right to do. I think we're trying to get.... We're getting close.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—Papineau—Des Collines, QC]

We'll match the letters after.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Let's let him finish, and then we can clarify after.

Mr. Lauzon, please continue.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—Papineau—Des Collines, QC]

Let's fix that right now, Mr. Chair.

Part (c) stays the same. Part (d) is now

The motion would set Wednesday, November 4, 2026, at 5:00 p.m. as the deadline for submitting amendments to the clerk and would ask the committee to complete the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill during the week of November 16, 2026.

The motion would also ask the committee, notwithstanding the aforementioned deadlines and requirements, to allow for some flexibility in setting the committee's agenda should circumstances warrant it.

Finally, the motion would also propose that the committee issue a press release inviting interested parties to submit written submissions to the committee, specifying that it is preferable for such submissions to be presented in both official languages and that they must be received by the clerk no later than 5:00 p.m. on Monday, October 26, 2026, in order to be considered by the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. Lauzon.

I have Mr. Ste-Marie, Mr. Lake and then Mr. Albas.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank my colleague Mr. Lauzon for tabling this proposed amendment.

I have a few points to raise.

Firstly, I fully agree with the paragraph proposing to have two ministers at a time for two hours, making a total of four ministers.

Secondly, normally, when amendments are made, there is always good co-operation and constructive discussion; Mr. Lauzon came to speak to me.

However, I have noted that in the former paragraph f, which would here become paragraph e, he has changed one word that profoundly alters the meaning of the order of business we will have to carry out. I do not know whether this was intentional on his part or not. The previous clause read “undertake a clause-by-clause examination”, but he changed it to “complete”. If that is the case, I am tabling a subamendment to restore the word “undertake” rather than “complete”. We do not know how long this will take, and we have had no negotiations or discussions on this matter. In my view, it is premature to tie our hands now regarding the end date of the clause-by-clause consideration, when we have not even begun to hear from witnesses. Therefore, by mutual agreement, we can revert to “undertake”. However, if it is the wish of Mr. Lauzon and the Liberals that the word “complete” be used, I propose a subamendment to reinstate the word “undertake”.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—Papineau—Des Collines, QC]

Mr. Chair, I can understand that. The main reason for changing it to “complete” is that, in the same sentence, it is stated that we want to complete the study by November 16, which is a deadline. However, one does not undertake something with a fixed date. So, in my view, saying that we are completing the study by a fixed date fits much better in the same sentence than saying that we are going to undertake a study. It's a matter of language.

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

Mr. Chair, I would like to thank my colleague for his clarifications.

I therefore propose a subamendment to replace the word “complete” with “undertake”, in light of the arguments I have raised.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

I'm not sure that's a proper amendment. I think we'd have to defeat the amendment and then go back to the original language. That would be the proper process.

I'm being told you can submit a subamendment. We're debating and we're now limiting ourselves to the debate on “Complete”. If we want to do that....

Do we have a speakers list for that issue? I have Mr. Lauzon, Mr. Lake, Mr. Danko and Mr. Leslie.

Mr. Lauzon, go ahead.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—Papineau—Des Collines, QC]

Is it on the word? Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

That's all we're talking about.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—Papineau—Des Collines, QC]

We can stop there, if you like. It's just that I felt that, in the end, when setting a deadline, it would have been more appropriate to state that we would complete or finalize the clause-by-clause study. That is another term we could have used. However, if you're absolutely set on keeping “undertake”, I don't mind replacing “complete” with “undertake”, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

We're going to have to vote on the “Begin” and “Complete” amendment.

Are there any other submissions on that fine point? Okay.

I have Mr. Lake, Mr. Albas and Mr. Leslie. We'll go down the row.

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

I thought Mr. Danko was after me when you originally read out the list.