Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First of all, you'll know I'm not a regular member of this committee, so it has been intriguing to sit in and watch the second meeting on Bill C-65. For Canadians at home to understand it concerns a number of important legislative changes to the election process. I heard on clause 2—which we're no longer on; we're on a subamendment—important elements about how we make sure that seniors are able to vote, particularly those who need assistance, and make sure that we can update the election laws so that there's a proper process in place.
We are here today talking about a subamendment that has been moved by Mr. Cooper, and I think it's important to give a bit of context. Bill C-65 proposes to move the fixed election date from October 20, 2025, to October 27, 2025. The rationale for that is there's already an existing municipal election happening in Alberta at that time, along with Diwali.
Ms. Barron has correctly identified that, although it is well intentioned to try to avoid those situations, it brings in a situation whereby those MPs who were elected in 2019 could, by virtue of that change, qualify for a pension. She has gone through that at great length and is proposing to bring the date back to October 20, which I fully support. I think it's extremely important.
I want to highlight and express the concern I have about the way we're politicizing the reason why members of Parliament serve. I just listened to Mr. Cooper go on quite a treatise about why this subamendment was important and why it should be moved to, I think, February 24, 2025.
Is that correct, Mr. Cooper? Yes.
He went on to say it's because Mr. Singh wants to qualify for a pension, calling into question, in some ways, the integrity of why that member of Parliament serves and the decisions he makes. I think that is unfortunate, because it starts to call into question why any of us come to this place to serve.
I asked ChatGPT what the value of Michael Cooper's pension would be as a member of Parliament and what the liabilities would be. ChatGPT is pretty good. It gets lots of good information. I would like to read what it said. It said that the “specific value of Michael Cooper's potential pension as a member of Parliament”—I'll note that he has one, because he's been serving since 2015—“when he qualifies is not publicly disclosed on an individual basis; however, Canadian MPs who qualify for a pension through the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act after serving at least six years can receive a defined benefit based on their years of service and contribution.”
Mr. Cooper talked to a great extent about the benefits Mr. Singh will qualify for if the election happens after February 25, 2025, yet what he missed out in that part of his testimony is that he actually has a larger pension obligation than Mr. Singh by far, certainly in his years of service.
I don't know if there is an ability to permit me to ask a question of Mr. Cooper, Mr. Chair, and still retain the floor. What are the procedural rules on that?