I'll just say this as a long-time member on the Hill and a long-time person in chair positions on the Hill, with over eight years as a chair. These committees are created through the House of Commons. Our membership is approved by the House of Commons, and work that is referred to a committee by the House is supposed to take precedence over all other work.
My understanding is that in the 60 days you've had this bill, there hasn't been a single meeting on this private member's bill, which I believe is not taking that reference from the House seriously. The reason that extensions are provided by the House.... Again, it's the House that will provide the extension. They have to agree to it, and it won't be agreed to until next Wednesday, according to the rules. If you want to go to page 1161 on rules and procedure in Bosc and Gagnon, at chapter 21, the only reason they'll grant an extension is that the committee couldn't complete its work within 60 days.
The committee decided not to do the work in 60 days. That, to me, is egregious and a violation of the privilege of the member on the PMB, the sponsor of the bill.
Yes, this bill should have been brought forward and considered in a justified time. If we couldn't hear all the witnesses who were required, or if it was an in-depth and technical bill, that's why extensions are granted, but to ask for an extension just because we didn't prioritize studying this bill, didn't call a single witness and didn't even allow the sponsor of the bill to appear before committee is egregious.
I would suggest that we let this bill, if it wasn't of interest to this committee up until this point in time to be reported back to the House or it failed and missed the deadline so it was deemed reported back to the House...but to request the extension of the House, which may not grant that extension because of the lack of seriousness shown by this committee in getting the work done in a timely manner, is a violation of parliamentary privilege.