Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Dec. 12th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Colleagues, welcome back to our clause-by-clause on Bill C-65.

As always, I'll give you a friendly reminder that when your earpieces are not in use, they should be on the stickers that are present in front of us on the table.

I know that Mr. Morrice is attempting to join us. We're not going to wait for him, but I'll just note that he will appear online shortly.

Colleagues, we're just going to get right into it, and we're going to pick up where we left off. Mr. Cooper had introduced a subamendment. You'll recall that we had a subamendment that we debated. It was defeated. Mr. Cooper introduced a new subamendment, and that is what we are currently on.

Do you have a question, Mr. Duncan?

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

I'd like to go on the speaking list after Mr. Cooper.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

You want to be on the speaking list. Okay. I also see Mr. Calkins and Mr. Berthold.

Everybody should have the subamendment.

Is everybody else clear on the subamendment? Okay.

Mr. Cooper, the floor is yours.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I will just read into the record the subamendment before us. It is that NDP-2, proposing to amend clause 5 of Bill C-65, be amended by adding the following after “tion.”:

However, the first general election after this section comes into force is to be held on the later of

(a) Monday, February 24, 2025, and

(b) subject to subsection (3), the Monday following the 50th day after the day on which this section comes into force.

(3) For the purpose of paragraph (2)(b), if the Monday referred to in that paragraph is a holiday, polling day shall be held on the Tuesday after that Monday, and any time specified under this Act before or after polling day is to be calculated as if polling day were the Monday.

Mr. Chair, I want to provide, at the outset, some context on why we have put forward this subamendment. It goes back to the clause in this bill, Bill C-65, that secures the pensions of soon-to-be-defeated Liberal and NDP MPs. This government sold this bill as an elections bill, but we now know that the real purpose of this bill is to protect the pensions of Liberal and NDP MPs.

We know that Canadians have had enough of this Prime Minister. He is the most unpopular prime minister in decades. The leader of the NDP is not much more popular, having propped up this government for more than two years—a government that has made life more expensive, that has increased taxes on Canadians, that has fuelled inflation, and that is riddled with corruption and conflict from top to bottom.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I don't want to interrupt Mr. Cooper's little rage-farming clickbait tantrum, but I just want to ask for clarification around this.

It looks like it's substantively similar to the previous subamendment. I think we already had a ruling on that, if I'm not mistaken, at the last meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Yes, that's correct.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I just wanted to understand the rationale behind the decision, because when I read this over in black and white in front of me, it just seems to be substantively the same. I would like to ask for clarification on it, so that I understand the rationale.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Mr. Turnbull.

I think that for clarity, you know, sometimes the chair will provide their own explanation after seeking advice. In this case, I'm just going to go to the legislative clerks directly. I think it might be helpful for us to hear the rationale they provided to me, which was the basis of my judgment.

I'm going to turn it over to them for a moment.

[Alexie Labelle, Legislative Clerk]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

After reviewing both subamendments, we came to the conclusion that they were substantively different because of the fact that the second subamendment introduces different options—in this case, two options. That's why we felt it was sufficiently different to be considered admissible.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

The options are A and B. That is what you're saying.

[Alexie Labelle]

Yes, A and B.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Okay. Because it introduces options, that's what makes it substantively different.

[Alexie Labelle]

That's our opinion.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

That's your opinion. Okay.

All right. Then that was supported by the ruling of the chair.

Chair, you ruled that it was....

I'd like to challenge the chair, even though I know you're our chair, or one of the chairs. I would like to challenge that ruling of the chair.

I don't think it's substantively different enough, and I believe that this is a repeat debate. It's an opportunity for the Conservatives to filibuster and waste the committee's time once again, with officials here.

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I'm questioning, maybe through the clerk, how somebody can challenge the chair two days later. If the ruling was made at the meeting the other day, Mr. Turnbull should have raised it at that point and had it dealt with. We're now in a meeting two days later, having been told and having not been challenged.

I believe it is too late and not reasonable that we now have a challenge to the chair because Mr. Turnbull doesn't like it. If he didn't like it, he should have done this at the meeting two days ago.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

To that point of order, Chair....

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

You're not recognized.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Time out.

Thanks. We are suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Okay—

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Just a moment, Mr. Berthold. Mr. Turnbull had the floor on the same point of order before I suspended the meeting, so you'll be able to speak after him.

Go ahead, Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I was just going to say that my understanding was that it came at the very last moment of the last meeting. This would be the earliest opportunity I've had to bring this up. The ruling was made right before you adjourned the last meeting. I did not have an opportunity in that last meeting to express my disappointment with the ruling of the chair on this particular matter.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

I've heard you, Mr. Turnbull. Thank you.

I have Mr. Berthold.

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

Mr. Chair, I would like to contribute to your reflection on the situation.

It wasn't until you allowed debate to start that your ruling could have been challenged. Once the debate begins on a decision you've made, it's too late to challenge it.

So Mr. Turnbull missed the opportunity to make his arguments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you for your thoughts.

Is it on the same point of order, Mr. Cooper?