Thank you, Mr. Chair.
To go back to this amendment, there are so many things for us to go over. I could spend the next week just explaining facts that are completely contradictory to almost everything the Conservatives have said since we started debating this, but I'm really trying not to stoop to their level. Was it Michelle Obama who said that when they go low, you go high? I don't remember the saying. I'm just really trying not to follow in the footsteps of a poor example as to how we use taxpayers' money and how we best move forward.
I also think it's important that we have some facts. We're going to sit here and have all of these filibuster.... You know, any chance that the Conservatives have to filibuster in order to be able to talk about ways in which they can increase division, they will certainly do that.
I'm not going to speak for too long, but I will share a few things that I think are important for us to consider as a committee. The first thing I want to reiterate is this. I know that the Conservatives aren't big on paying attention to media that has any legitimacy to it whatsoever, but this is a public article from CTV News. It was published on May 30, 2024. I think there are some interesting facts in here. It states:
The federal New Democrats want to amend the Liberal government's electoral reform legislation to scrap the proposal to push back the vote by a week and consequently secure pensions for dozens of MPs, CTV News has learned.
This is interesting, because it contradicts what we are hearing from the Conservative members.
The article then quotes me:
It is a perk of the date change NDP MP and the party's democratic institutions critic Lisa Marie Barron says “doesn't look good,” in the broader context of Canadians' cost of living concerns.
I haven't actually read this since May, so I'm as surprised as you are. Let's see what else I said:
“I've had constituents and Canadians bring this to my attention, and I just want to make very clear that right now is not the time for members of Parliament to be thinking about their own financial gain,” she said in an interview. “We want to make sure that we're very clear from the onset around the necessary amendments for us to move forward on this.”
That coincides with everything I've been saying, and it's proposing some solutions.
The article states, “80 MPs stand to benefit”. I find this interesting. I think it's good for us to really talk about what this means for members around this table.
The article says:
The Conservative party has the highest number of MPs who would benefit by being able to qualify for a pension should they lose their seats in the next election, with 32 of their MPs first elected in 2019.
Oh, this is an interesting point:
There are 22 Liberal MPs, 19 Bloc Quebecois MPs—more than half their caucus—and six NDP MPs elected in 2019 who would be among those standing to secure pensions if they were defeated in 2025.
I think this part is important:
Barron, elected in 2021, is not one of them.
That's interesting. That contradicts as well, but wait. It goes on:
Neither is NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh as he secured his seat in a 2019 federal byelection months before the general election.
Huh. That's interesting. That also contradicts.
Let's see if there's anything else here. This comes from the Canadian Press: “NDP MP Lisa Marie Barron rises during Question Period in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill”.
I could go on. There's information here that clearly shows that the decision to remedy this problem and to stand in the House of Commons to get all members of Parliament on board with this....
Again, I can reiterate that immediately upon this problem being identified, I spoke with members of the Bloc Québécois, I spoke with members of the Liberal Party, and I spoke with members of the Conservative Party, who all agreed that this was a problem. I was putting forward a solution that we could have already resolved by now. It could be, at this point in time, an issue that's already been resolved.
Canadians could have the peace of mind right now of knowing that this issue is resolved, and that this particular piece of legislation would not benefit the pensions of members of Parliament. Instead, we could be having a conversation about the components of the bill that move us in the right direction. However, we can't, because the Conservatives—