By Denis Carmel
OTTAWA – Today, the Heritage Committee started by hearing witnesses and, at some point, one member from the government side introduced a motion to set a deadline for the filing of amendments to Bill C-11.
I know I am being repetitive, since it has been the third time this motion has been discussed without resolution.
Then, a Conservative member introduced an amendment to extend the deadline, and spoke to it at length, clearly dragging the puck – to the point where the Minister of Canadian Heritage who had come to speak to the legislation he sponsors had to leave the room without having been given the opportunity to speak.*
It has become clear that today, we think, will be the last day before the committee moves to the clause-by-clause phase of the study. But in order to start that new phase, the committee has to set a deadline for the amendments to be sent to the clerk. Or not.
The three parties supporting C-11, have indicated they will be tabling their own amendments by the deadline of June 3, at 4 p.m. ET, even though such a motion was not adopted.
At this time, it is not clear when the clause-by-clause phase will start.
I believe some rulings from the chair of the committee will be challenged in front of the speaker of the House of Commons, including one about putting an end to a Conservative member’s ability to speak to her sub-amendment.
We will keep our readers apprised of further developments.
It is worth noting that the committee chair let it slip, probably involuntarily, that the committee had to send the bill back to the House by June 23, which sounds like an admission that it will not be adopted this session. But she may have misspoken.
*A reader who had watched the hearings yesterday wrote to Cartt.ca today (June 3) to make the case that while the Conservative member “began dragging the puck, the Liberals (and the NDP) also helped to drag the puck themselves.” The reader noted that at one point the Conservative member proposed debate on the motion be adjourned (leaving the minister time to speak), but the Liberals voted against it.
