Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Nov. 5th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you very much, Ms. DeSousa.

That ends the opening remarks from witnesses.

I will now turn the floor over to Mr. Duncan for six minutes.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for being here today.

Mr. Chair, I want to speak to you and ask some questions about this changing of the election date. You made a few different comments, and it's interesting. You're right that the blowback from Canadians has been fast and furious on this.

The NDP today now start off all their comments by saying that they have nothing to do with this and they're opposed to this now, despite our finding out last week that they had secret meetings with the—

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order. The member knows full well that there is an amendment that was put forward and that the NDP has stood up in the House of Commons—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Ms. Barron.

Unfortunately, I can't accept that as a legitimate point of order. Perhaps that's something that you and Mr. Duncan can discuss for clarification later, but I can't rule that as being out of order.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, is it not a point of order when a member is misconstruing the intentions of another member or when information is false?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Ms. Barron, if you feel strongly about that matter, perhaps what we can do is allow Mr. Duncan to continue. If you hear what you deem to be some form of evasiveness of the truth, you can always raise a point of order again. I can pause briefly and provide a judgment to the committee, but perhaps we can give Mr. Duncan the benefit of the doubt as he continues and see where this goes.

Are you okay with that?

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Okay.

Mr. Duncan, I paused the time. There are five minutes and 30 seconds remaining. The floor is yours.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Thank you very much.

I don't mind that intervention and point of order because it just shows how desperate NDP members are to separate themselves from the change of the election date. We found out last week that they were involved in exclusive secret meetings with the Prime Minister's Office and the Privy Council Office and getting briefings and information. They knew full well that the date of the election was going to be changed, because this is not an elections bill. This is a pensions bill for NDP and Liberal MPs who are scared of losing their seats and missing out on their pensions.

I want to say, Mr. Terrazzano, about the date of the election, that one of the things we heard as well last week was about not being able to move it up because it would interfere with and hurt summer. Do you want to refute that to say that you think Canadians would be okay with an earlier election, including one that might start even before Labour Day or over the summer? Would that be okay?

[Franco Terrazzano]

Thank you very much for your question.

You know, there are 350 days between now and October 20, 2025—350 days. I have a lot of confidence in everyone in this room that you can figure out one of those 350 days to hold the election on.

Let's just pretend that in some crazy world it's impossible to hold an election on one of the 350 days between now and October 20 of next year. There's another simple option: Just move the pension eligibility back later.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Here's the thing about the summer. They came last week and said that they looked at it and decided they couldn't do it during the summer because that's impractical—with Labour Day and it would break summer holidays—yet it was no problem for the Liberals to call the last election right in the middle of the summer, which then went over Labour Day.

They had no problem when it was opportunistic for them, but now, when it comes to their pensions, they want to move it back the other way by a week, fully supported, obviously, by the NDP, because this bill is part of their coalition agreement—

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

I have a point of order.

The member knows full well that the information he is portraying right now is inaccurate and false. I'd ask, through you, Mr. Chair, that the member please check his facts. He knows that there's an amendment put forward by the NDP. He knows that what he is saying is inaccurate. I ask that the member please speak truth in his words at this committee.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Ms. Barron. I will ask Mr. Duncan to take that under advisement. However, during your round of questioning, of course, there will be time for you to add the clarity that you feel may be necessary in response to him.

Mr. Duncan, I'm going to return the floor to you for about three minutes and 30 seconds.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

The truth is that the NDP and the Liberals worked behind the scenes in secret meetings. They were given access to PMO and PCO officials to draft this legislation.

It is only after they were caught out and called out for this being a pension protection program for NDP and Liberal MPs that suddenly they're outraged about it and they're against it. They're only against it because millions of Canadians and taxpayers spoke out about how ridiculous and self-serving all of this was.

I just want to narrow down—

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I apologize, Mr. Chair. I definitely don't want to be interrupting the member, but when there's false information that's coming forward, it is of course my responsibility to Canadians to call it out.

I'm wondering, Mr. Chair, if it's possible, on a point of order, for us to clarify whether there was an amendment put forward to the clerk, dated in June, that speaks exactly to this item being removed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Unfortunately, Ms. Barron, we would be entering into debate at that point.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

I see Ms. Romanado on the same point of order.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

On that point of order, I want to say that, under Standing Order 18, on order and decorum, at page 12, the behaviour of using “disrespectful” language, using “offensive words” against a member or using remarks that “question the Member's integrity, honesty or character” are out of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Ms. Romanado. I'm not sure I heard a breach of that particular portion of the standing order. However, I take the point that has been raised by Ms. Barron. Again, I will encourage all members to do their best to present facts as they are engaging in their remarks.

With that, we are going to return the floor to Mr. Duncan, who has about three minutes remaining.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

The NDP drafted this legislation with the Liberals. Only after it got tabled and only after they got caught and the blowback was so severe did they finally say that they wanted to make some changes and that some parts of the bill were problematic. It's problematic for them because they got caught.

I want to narrow this down here. As Conservatives, we oppose this bill every step of the way for exactly the reasons we outlined. We're not here for our pensions. We're here for an election now, earlier and sooner rather than later, and we oppose this self-serving move that the Liberals and NDP voted for at second reading. That's why we're here.

I want to use your numbers to clarify and to make sure Canadians are clear on this. With the Liberals and NDP coming together with this bill and with both of them voting for it to get it here to committee in its current form, based on the numbers you have said, would I be correct that, if the election date were moved back a week, this would be at least $42 million in a pension guarantee if Liberal and NDP MPs were defeated? Would that be accurate?

[Franco Terrazzano]

It depends on the results of the election, obviously, but it would be accurate to say that, if you delay the election by one week without moving the pension eligibility like we recommend, this would cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars in extra pensions for politicians. That's correct.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

I have at least $42 million for the dozens of Liberal and NDP MPs who would qualify, including a quarter of the NDP caucus, just for the record as well.

Now, we know again that this is a key part of their coalition agreement. They've said as much in public—that this was a core part of the coalition deal they had with each other—and now we know why. It's not about adding a couple of advance poll voting days. It's not about foreign interference and combatting and closing loopholes, because we've heard from several witnesses that, in the bill they proposed together, there are still many loopholes that exist and are not filled that way.

At the end of the day, then, when we go back to this, I think a key part is that the NDP were complicit the entire time. From an appropriateness perspective, when we're changing election laws or doing these types of pieces of legislation, particularly in changing election rules and details like the date of the election, do you think it's appropriate for one party to be given access to the Prime Minister's Office and Privy Council Office briefings while the Bloc Québécois and Conservatives are shut out and not knowing anything about it?

[Franco Terrazzano]

I'm not going to weigh into the partisan situation—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Answer very briefly, please, Mr. Terrazzano.