[1] Interesting, if frustrating: Bill C-12 scheduled for debate at 10:00. Bit of routine business before it starts: Some MPs table reports from Committees, but quickly, to get to C-12. CPCs table a Report from the Industry Committee, then bring motion about it. Tick-Tock. /2

[2] Cons talk about their motion. Cons ask other Cons questions. Kevin Lamoureux (Lib) brings motion to adjourn debate on Con motion, 2nded by Mark Gerretson (Lib). Con MP calls for recorded vote. House adjourns for 30 mins to call MPs for vote. Tick-Tock.

#BillC12

[3] Lib motion to adjourn debate on Cons Industry Committee motion, (and thus move on the C-12 debate) passes. Cons and Bloc both voted against it (in essence, they voted to delay C-12 debate) /4

@ForourkidsO @AndreaCareless @tam_maiuri @sullitudinal @Gasp4Change

#BillC12

[4] Near start of C-12 debate, Libs bring motion to restrict debate to five more hours, then to terminate debate & vote on sending it to ENVI Committee. This was debated for 30 min. Now waiting 8 mins more for recorded vote on that motion.

@ProfKHarrison @AK4ClimateActi1

[5] On Lib Motn to limit debate on C-12 to 5 more hrs on 2nd Reading, motion passes Yea 169 to Nay 155. Looks like Libs and NDP voted Yea. CPC, Bloc, and, interestingly at least @ElizabethMay & Ms Atwin voted Nay. Now onto CPC motion to terminate C-12.
@ottawacarl @catabreu_

[6] Disappointed in the level of debate on C-12. CPC motion to kill it is ostensibly based on their objection to the make-up of the advisory body, an important issue: Should it be reps of interest groups or experts (like UK and NZ have)? No discussion of that. @paulmanly

[7] Oh, sincere thanks, @ElizabethMay! You just raised the issue that the advisory body must be made up of experts (like the UK), not stakeholder reps (like @JonathanWNV has done)!
@MDmoms4HR @andrew_leach @ProfKHarrison
@tam_maiuri @AndreaCareless @ForourkidsO