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

[Trevor Knight]

That's right.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

It would just be an arbitrary change to the tradition of having four years.

[Trevor Knight]

That's my understanding of the amendment, yes.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

The Conservatives propose that they should have the ability to change a four-year cycle for each general election because they want an election on February 24. That's what I'm hearing. They've said they want it now, but now they're saying that they want it on the 24th of February, which is interesting too.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Well, we want one now.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

The number of idiosyncrasies and contradictions in the Conservative Party is just appalling. It's hard to fathom and understand—

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

It's pretty straightforward.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

—any semblance of logical thinking over there, I have to say, because I don't think there is. There is just political strategy to cause mayhem and chaos in the House of Commons. As I think Ms. Barron talked about, burning the House down is sort of their general mentality these days. Disrupting all aspects of Parliament seems to be their motive.

I think my position is clear. This doesn't make sense for a number of different reasons that I've tried to outline. I think it's appalling that the Conservatives wouldn't allow us to move to NDP-2 and actually dispense with that important amendment to deal with the very issue that they have ranted and raved about, even despite the fact that their members benefit the most from the change that was proposed.

It's interesting that they're now pulling these procedural tricks to move a subamendment that obviously makes no sense, given the objectives of the bill and given the traditions of Parliament. It's pretty appalling to watch the partisan antics that go on at this committee. It's too bad for us and it's too bad for the people of Canada. I wish they could bear witness to the games we see every day in the House of Commons. I guess we just need to get better at showcasing just how disruptive and irresponsible the Conservative members are.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Mr. Turnbull.

Mr. Blois.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

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?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

If Mr. Cooper accepted the opportunity to answer the question, he could. It's a bit unconventional, but if Mr. Cooper would like to entertain that, I'm willing to see where it goes for a bit.

To be clear, that's not Mr. Blois ceding the floor to Mr. Cooper; that's Mr. Cooper now assuming the role, effectively, of a witness. To be clear, Mr. Cooper, this would not give you the floor. It would simply allow you the opportunity to engage in an exchange.

This is extremely unconventional, colleagues, but I'm not—

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

He has moved this subamendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

I'm not closing the door to it just yet, but Mr. Cooper, I certainly cannot force you to answer the question.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

I don't know if he has put his question, but—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Mr. Blois, do you...?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

—it certainly seems to me, based on the submissions Mr. Blois has made up until now, that he misses the point entirely that Mr. Singh went behind closed doors—

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

I have a point of order, Chair.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

—to secure pensions for NDP MPs by pushing back the date of the next election. That is what is at issue.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

I was just going to ask, given the fact that we're talking a lot about pensions, and the Conservative Party wants to make this about pensions and the value of pensions, if Mr. Cooper would like to divulge to this committee and to the good people of Canada if he knows what the value of his pension is for serving as the member of Parliament for St. Albert since 2015.

Does he know that, and would he be willing to give that number?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Mr. Cooper, if you would like to respond, I'll give you the floor.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

I don't know the number offhand. I would reiterate that it misses the point that I didn't go behind closed doors to move the date of the next election back so that I would qualify for a pension. I also am not a member of Parliament who goes out and says that he has ripped up an agreement; says that the Liberals are too weak, too selfish and too beholden to corporate interests; and then, when given the opportunity to stand by those words, abandons those words and sells Canadians out, sells out to Justin Trudeau.

Further, if it is all one big misunderstanding about pensions with respect to Mr. Singh, then the NDP should welcome this subamendment because it would absolutely clear the air. It would prove that I'm wrong in my submissions about why it is that Mr. Singh is propping up Justin Trudeau's costly and corrupt government. I would say that Canadians shouldn't hold their breaths. It's pretty obvious what the NDP are going to do. They're going to defeat the subamendment and continue to prop up Justin Trudeau's government so that Jagmeet Singh can get his pension on February 25.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for allowing that for the good people of St. Albert—Edmonton.

By the way, I actually quite like Mr. Cooper. He's a nice enough guy, but I think it is problematic in this place when we start....

Mr. Cooper, by the way, is trying to circumvent the process, which of course is in the House. It is that, at any point, if a majority of members of Parliament in the House have lost confidence in the government—and the Conservatives have failed three times to establish that—then eventually there will be an election in 2025. It could go the distance, and we would have to actually ask ourselves if it should be October 20, which I think it should be, if that's the case and if parties want that. Of course, there is a budget coming in 2025. There are a number of confidence votes where perhaps a majority of MPs will actually bring it down.

However, I think it is problematic when you have members of Parliament calling into question the reason MPs serve and the reason MPs do their work here in this place. It is a very corrosive and slippery slope, especially when the person who is moving the subamendment—I'm quite confident—has the same entitlement or has a larger entitlement to a pension than the person he is trying to call into question and play political games on. That is the problem I have.

If we start to do this kind of stuff, we get into the provincial situation. In Nova Scotia, they have politicized the pay packet of MLAs so poorly that the contribution amount now is such that it's very difficult to find people who want to do the work because of the realities of the difficulty of the job and because of the stress it puts on their families. I understand there hasn't been any type of remuneration increase in almost 15 years. I want to highlight that.

I do want to apologize to the witnesses. Thank you for the work you do. There is important work happening here before the committee, and we get stuck into this ridiculous stuff.

I want to highlight for the record that, again, if we're going to go into the ditch, we might as well go right into it, Mr. Chair. It was interesting. I was at a celebration of life this weekend, and we were talking politics with some young men. There was a young constituent in my riding who was talking about politics, about the Prime Minister and about the leader of the official opposition. He asked how long the leader of the official opposition has been an MP and when he got into this. I said that he has been doing this his entire adult life. He was elected at 24, with no work experience outside of this place.

By the way, the member for Carleton has served Canada for 20 years. I don't begrudge that fact. What I begrudge is that the Conservative Party members come to this place, start throwing rocks when they live in glass houses and start calling into question the integrity of MPs who serve. I have said in the House that Pierre Poilievre is the biggest fat cat here in Ottawa. He lives in Stornoway and represents a riding 30 minutes away.

By the way, I have no problem with that, but if you're going to call into question the reason MPs are serving, then that's the problem I have, that there is the audacity to do that. I am playing a bit of that game with Mr. Cooper here right now, where he moves a subamendment on a pension entitlement that he has, which is larger than Mr. Singh's.

The people of St. Albert—Edmonton should be asking themselves if that's the way they want to see their member of Parliament act in here. I hope not. I know it's part of the political games that we play here.

I also want to highlight that Mr. Poilievre qualified for a pension at 31. If we're going to play this game, then maybe we should actually be having conversations about retroactively changing the contributions and the pensions of MPs who are serving, including those back to 2015. That's good. Mr. Cooper seems to be in favour of that type of conversation. Maybe we need to start having that one as well.

I just think that when you look at this, it is very clear that there is a clear consensus to support what Ms. Barron said. If there is a will in the House of Commons to actually bring down the government, that will happen on its own in 2025, or based on this legislation—if it can ever get through and if the Conservatives aren't going to filibuster clauses about trying to help seniors in long-term care facilities have the ability to access the vote—we'll have a fixed election date, and by law, we will have an election in 2025.

Let's be careful not to throw rocks when you live in glass houses. Let's be careful not to call into question the integrity of MPs who serve. We are very privileged, as members of Parliament, to have the ability to serve our constituents. We have the privilege to have resources, to have people on our staff and in our constituency offices. While I have the floor, I'd like to recognize my staff at home, who do tremendous work for Canadians.

However, when we start calling into question why MPs are voting the way they do, or why they're supporting.... You can call into...why are you doing this, but if it's all around that insinuation, it is a damn slippery slope, and I don't think we should be doing it.

I support Ms. Barron's motion to move the election from the 27th inadvertently back to the 20th so we don't bring into disrepute the reason that MPs serve. There's a clear consensus to move on that. Let's not waste any more time. Let's not see any more filibustering. Let's go forward.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you very much, Mr. Blois.

Mr. Kurek, the floor is yours.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you very much, Chair. As always, it's good to be at PROC.

It's interesting, as I reflect. I will be supporting the subamendment Mr. Cooper brought forward. As those who are watching might not know, when a bill is tabled in the House of Commons, paper copies are brought to MPs. There have been many discussions and suggestions that there were negotiations behind closed doors between the governing Liberals and their coalition partners in the NDP.

I started flipping through this bill, and I saw the changes to the election day. At first, I thought it was a joke. How in the world would someone suggest so overtly, in their own self-interest, pushing the election date back one week? I tweeted a picture of it with no specific allegation. It was simply a picture of that paragraph of the bill. Over the course of the next number of hours, hundreds of thousands of Canadians saw it. While I didn't ascribe any motive, I would certainly suggest today that there seems to be a clear motive. Certainly, Canadians saw through the facade of what that amendment meant.

Here is the reality: Conservatives vote no confidence in the government all the time. It seems as if my friends in other political parties should familiarize themselves with this Westminster parliamentary system we have. The fact is that it is self-serving political manoeuvring the government is undertaking in secret negotiations with the NDP. That is why Canadians, and people more generally, do not trust politicians.

This is an opportunity for members of this committee to make a statement saying that it's not about pensions. Rather, it's about accountability. Let's move the fixed election day. As we heard very clearly today, it can be adjusted. That's why we have an independent elections regulator and authority in this country. That's a proud part of our democratic tradition. Let's move it to the day before Mr. Singh qualifies for his pension and see where his loyalties are—whether he's in it for his pension or for Canadians.

Mr. Chair, I cede the floor with this final word: Let's get to a vote. Let's see where MPs are at.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Mr. Kurek.

Mr. Redekopp, the floor is yours.