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

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

I am challenging the chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

We have a challenge to the chair.

Madam Clerk, if you could please explain what this means, we'd appreciate that.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Christine Holke]

We will vote on the motion that the chair's decision be sustained.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

What's the decision?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Colleagues, for clarity, my ruling affirms the right for Ms. Barron to continue speaking prior to a vote occurring on the UC motion, because the language is yet to be presented. In the view of Monsieur Berthold my ruling is out of order. He's challenging that particular ruling. I'm seeing him nod, which means I'm not putting words in his mouth and there's agreement on that, so I am going to ask the clerk to call the question.

The question is whether or not you agree with my ruling that Ms. Barron should be allowed to continue to speak prior to the introduction of her motion.

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 7; nays 4)

Ms. Barron, I return the floor to you, and there will be no further points of order on this matter as we've dealt with it.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Just to clarify, I look forward to our going through this process of debating this important unanimous consent motion, if that is, in fact, the process, and bringing it to a vote, because this is an opportunity for all members of Parliament to clearly state how they feel, to actually have solutions to their concerns and to actually see where all members stand on this.

The unanimous consent motion that I was seeking to put forward is to see a resolution of the clause of this bill that benefits MP pensions by bringing NDP‑2 and clause 5 to a vote. By bringing this to a vote, this is an opportunity for us to resolve the issue that was brought forward by the Conservatives as a concern, which is the same issue that I and the Bloc Québécois brought forward as a concern, and the same issue that the Liberals have agreed—

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

No. Let's get to the motion. We're not giving consent.

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

—is something that they will also be voting to see removed.

I am hearing the Conservatives, for lack of a better word, heckling me as I speak here. I am not quite certain why, because this is an opportunity for us to unite, to show Canadians that we hear their concerns and that we wish to move forward with a solution to this problem.

It's quite reasonable to me that we take the time to bring this to a vote so that we can show Canadians that we hear them and that we are going to be moving forward with this.

Perhaps I can share a little bit more around some of the background of this unanimous consent motion. It's been quite the process, and I've been sitting here listening to the Conservatives speak at length about their concerns and their many attacks on the intentions behind the NDP. I'm happy to be able to speak a little bit more about this.

I was newly elected in 2021. Upon getting elected, I made a commitment to constituents and to those I represent that I come to the House of Commons, that I represent them, that I speak on their behalf on concerns and that I keep my values intact. That is exactly what I have done.

When it was brought to my attention that there was a clause in this bill that would inadvertently provide members of Parliament with pensions that they would not have received otherwise, I did exactly what any parliamentarian should do, which is to stand in the House of Commons to propose a solution to this problem. The solution that I proposed was that we remove this entire part of the clause so that the date is no longer changed.

I stood in the House of Commons. I made this very clear. I made this clear to my constituents. I made this clear to Canadians across the country. Instead of looking for a resolution, Mr. Chair, the Conservatives stood up and basically said that they were no longer going to support this entire bill. Why? It's because there are some catchy slogans that they can attach to it.

The Conservatives found catchy slogans, and with their incredible fundraising efforts based on misinformation—I will commend them; they are quite successful in their fundraising efforts—they pushed out this information to Canadians that this bill had nothing to do with anything other than MP pensions.

This is disheartening, to say the least. We know there are many components of this bill that move us forward in strengthening our democracy, increasing representation, making sure that many of the issues in previous elections that were barriers to people fully participating in the election process are brought forward. Unfortunately, the Conservatives, in true Conservative fashion, which I've seen over and over since I've been elected, decided to oversimplify, find some catchy slogans and push this out over and over again.

I would like to highlight something that I brought forward in a previous meeting because it does contradict some of the things that I heard from the Conservatives. Specifically, on May 30, 2024, an article came out from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. I like this particular article. Let's be honest. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation doesn't spend a lot of time saying nice things about the NDP, so let's just take a moment to celebrate that they acknowledged the important work the NDP is doing. I want to quote from it.

I asked Mr. Terrazzano about this. He was a previous witness here on this exact matter.

The article says:

Today the New Democrats announced they would oppose the government’s amendment to delay the next election. “All MPs must vote against pushing back the federal election and the NDP deserves credit for announcing plans to amend the legislation and scrap the delay,” said Franco Terrazzano, CTF Federal Director. “Canadians are struggling, so there’s no way MPs should rig the system so more politicians can collect lucrative, taxpayer-funded pensions.”

You know, as expected, there is some pretty strong criticism against this being in the bill. To be clear, it's not that I don't think MP pensions are an important discussion. It's that I feel that if we're going to talk about MP pensions, we need to make it clear that we're talking about MP pensions and not see it added into a bill in a behind-the-scenes way. Canadians need transparency. Canadians deserve to know what it is we are debating in the House of Commons and to know our rationale for the decisions we are making. They need to know that the information is made available to them. That's not what we saw in the addition to this bill.

I think this is a reasonable solution for us to move forward with. I would also like to speak to the fact that throughout this time debating Bill C-65 and my short time on this committee, we have heard from the Conservatives many attacks on the fact that this work was done through a supply and confidence agreement with the Liberals and the NDP to be able to bring forward some ways for us to be able to strengthen our democracy. As is the process, it's here at committee for us to debate, to get various opinions and to understand the concerns and ultimately come together with an improved bill. I believe strongly that the key to our democratic processes is to ensure that we are hearing different perspectives. We may not agree, but I believe strongly that our coming together to hear these different perspectives allows for a stronger bill.

I was, however, a little taken aback, for lack of a better word, by the comments that were made as a result of the track record we have seen of the Conservatives. I was not here, but I did hear first-hand about Harper's.... What was it called again? Was it the “unfair elections act”? I believe that was its name.

I did have the chance to ask some of our witnesses about the unfair elections act and to also speak with the Minister of Democratic Institutions, because he was here—I was not fortunate enough to be here during that time—and find out if the Conservative government at that time spent any time at all consulting with the other parties who were elected at that time about this elections act they brought forward. In fact, the answer to that was “no”. We did not see any consultation happening at the time when the Conservatives brought forward this act, so it seems a little rich to be making this criticism.

I would argue that, fair enough, if the Conservatives wanted to bring forward a new elections act, the work would happen at this table. This is the process we have in place to make sure we have all opinions expressed, to bring in experts in the field who can clarify any questions we have, and to bring forward a bill that is stronger and meets the needs of Canadians.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Ms. Barron, I'm sorry to interrupt.

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Many of us had long committee hours this morning as well. Something I've tried to do is provide opportunities for members to run to the washroom. I understand that a few need to do this.

I will suspend very briefly. Then we'll come back.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Colleagues, we are resuming.

We were on a discussion presented by Ms. Barron, so I return the floor to her.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the moment to reflect, because I realize I might not have been 100% clear about the intention of what I'm speaking to today. I want to make sure that everybody around the table is very clear that the intention is that we the election date moved back. This is something that has been brought up as a concern. The reason I want to see this date moved back is so that we don't see the unintentional benefits to members of Parliament receiving pensions who would not have received them otherwise.

The funny thing about this is that everybody around this table says that they agree, and so I'm unclear as to why this is a problematic or a contentious issue for me to bring forward. I cannot stress more that the NDP stood up immediately to put forward a solution to this issue. We heard the Bloc make it very clear that they do not want to see that clause in this bill, and don't want to see the benefits to pensions of members of Parliament as a result. The Conservatives made it very clear that they are not in support as well. The Liberals, by golly, also said that they are in support of our removing this portion of the bill.

I'm going to get to the point of this, but I just need to reiterate that, instead of our moving forward with the solution that can be so easily done, we have seen the Conservatives use this as a fundraising opportunity and as an opportunity to use quick catchy slogans that are spreading misinformation to Canadians about the intentions of parliamentarians. It's a very tragic series of events when Conservatives are spreading misinformation, because we are at a time, right now, when Canadians need to have faith in those they elect. They need to have faith in the people who are there to represent them, that we are standing by the values that we have and are doing what is in the best interest of Canadians, not just spreading misinformation to increase division and to use it for fundraising efforts.

To be clear, the amendment that I'm speaking of was put forward on June 18, 2024. I'll read it, but I'm going to clarify what this means. It's not in language that is very easy to understand because there are so many moving pieces. The amendment is that Bill C-65, in clause 5, be amended by replacing lines 29 to 32 on page 2 with the following, and it has, just to make it a little more confusing, the letters:

tion.

To clarify for Canadians who are wondering, this amendment would remove the portion of the bill that benefits MP pensions. It would remove that completely. It would take it out so that it's no longer an issue.

I can't think of a better solution to the problem than for us to support this amendment, have this completely taken out of the bill and move forward. This is an opportunity for all of us to stand by our words and, by this very simple solution to this problem, show Canadians that we hear them, and that, today, at a time when so many are struggling to make ends meet, we are not here to benefit our own pensions.

We are here to represent Canadians, to strengthen our democracy, to see legislation being put forward that hears concerns, to come together and to put something forward that ultimately benefits Canadians and not members of Parliament. That is not what I got elected to do, and so I will make clear that, today, I'm moving a unanimous consent motion to immediately move to a vote on NDP-2 so that we can see this issue resolved, once and for all, and so that all members of Parliament around this table can make their stance clear.

With that, I hope that makes it clear that this is a unanimous consent motion. If there's any further information you need from me, Mr. Chair, please let me know.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Ms. Barron, I'm sorry. Simultaneously, I'm just confirming with my clerks here to make sure that everything is in order. Can you repeat, please, the motion that you've just moved for unanimous consent?

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

Mr. Chair, I'm moving a unanimous consent motion to immediately move to a vote on NDP-2, which is the amendment I'm referring to, to see the election date moved back to the original date.

The unanimous consent motion is very clear. It's to immediately move to a vote on NDP-2 because that, ultimately, would resolve the issue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

One moment, please.

Colleagues, just to be very clear here, Ms. Barron is asking the committee to grant unanimous consent for us to immediately vote on adopting NDP-2. I'll remind you that what NDP-2 does is in relation to whether or not there's a move to the election date.

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

That's what we're voting on, and it is in order.

Wait one second, colleagues. I see we have some blinking lights from the chamber.

Colleagues, it looks like it's been dealt with.

Ms. Barron, you've moved your unanimous consent motion.

Colleagues, the question is put to the committee.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Mr. Cooper, I have you next on the speaking list.

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

I think Mr. Duncan is—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

I'm sorry. I have you next on the speaking list, should Ms. Barron want to cede the floor. She still maintains the floor.

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

I still have more things I would like to say.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Okay. The floor continues to be yours, Ms. Barron.

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

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. I absolutely want to hear what my colleague has to say, but I do have more that I would like to say on this, so I will continue.

I found the outcome of the unanimous motion that was brought forward to be interesting but also not surprising. It's quite clear, and once again today it's been made clear, that the Conservatives are not actually interested in seeing solutions to this problem. They're not actually interested in us moving forward with solutions that Canadians are asking for. The reason is that, unfortunately, much to my dismay and to the dismay of constituents in Nanaimo—Ladysmith and Canadians across the country, the Conservatives are using this as a fundraising tactic. They're using this to spread misinformation in order to divide Canadians and in order to convince Canadians that they can't have trust in the people who have been elected. I have concerns that today we've seen once again that the Conservatives want to burn the place down instead of actually see true solutions be put into place to resolve this issue.

I can say with 100% certainty that my colleagues and I did not know that this particular change would result in this. It's frustrating that we're in this position. As soon as the information was brought forward that this was a problem, as soon as that was brought to our attention, we stood up to put forward a solution. To see the Conservatives express this so-called concern over the issue and yet continue to deny this committee the ability to resolve the issue is just.... I don't know how this could possibly be explained to Canadians across the country. I just don't know.

As I have said many times now, I've been sitting in this chair for I don't know how many hours. I wish I had kept track, because I'm certain Canadians would be interested. I can find this out. We've been sitting in these chairs listening to the Conservatives ask the same question 25 different ways in order to delay us moving forward on this important work.

I've also heard the Conservatives talking about things that are completely false. It has been so challenging for me to not call a point of order every 10 seconds to correct it, but do you know what? That's exactly what the Conservatives want me to do. The second I try to call out the misinformation that's being spread, before we even leave this committee, it's clipped and posted on social media. It's spread around completely out of context in order to pad their own pockets with more fundraising efforts to show how “corrupt” all members of Parliament are. It's completely frustrating, and Canadians are paying attention.

Canadians are paying attention today to what's occurring at this committee. Canadians are paying attention to the fact that once again the Conservatives have voted to not see solutions be put into place in order to benefit MP pensions.

I have just another thought on that. It's so interesting to me that when you actually look at the breakdown of the pensions of who would benefit from the particular clause in this bill, the Conservative members of Parliament are actually those who would benefit the most from this particular clause. I don't know if I can personally believe on one side telling Canadians that this cannot be in the bill and that they're not supporting it, and yet here we are in a position where we can resolve the issue and they are not. They are not choosing to resolve this issue.

I really do question the fact that we have the majority of Conservative members of Parliament who would benefit from this remaining in this bill who are today voting against a unanimous consent motion to resolve this issue. What does that mean? Again, I would never begin to pretend that I know the intentions of Conservative members of Parliament, but I do think Canadians should pay attention to those facts. The Conservatives are refusing to resolve this issue and they are in the fact the ones who benefit the most. That's just an interesting piece of information that Canadians should be aware of.

There are many reasons why I'm pushing to see this bill move forward for Canadians.

One piece of information the Conservatives are certainly not talking about is the recommendations that came forward from the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada. I know that in the “unfair elections act” the voice of the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada was something that they most definitely did not want to hear more of.

If members of Parliament took a moment to read these recommendations in here, they would see direct connections between the information that is in Bill C-65 and the information that was put forward and proposed by the Chief Electoral Officer, which is interesting because many of the questions the Conservatives are asking, they're asking as if these were just constructed behind closed doors with.... They're right here. They're in the actual recommendations from the Chief Electoral Officer.

A few of the recommendations that are in here relate directly to Bill C-65. I hear the member of parliament from the Conservatives who's heckling me. Perhaps I could provide him with a copy of this information if he'd like to look more closely at it. Perhaps I'm not presenting it as clearly as he would like, but it is quite clear here.