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

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

On the same point of order, I would cite Bosc and Gagnon, which states, “To appeal a decision by a Chair, a member must inform the committee of his or her intent immediately after the decision is announced.”

Now, the decision was announced at the last meeting. Mr. Turnbull did not challenge your ruling then. The meeting was adjourned. The meeting reconvened moments ago, two days later. At no time in those two days did Mr. Turnbull indicate any intention to challenge the chair. Debate.... I read the motion, the subamendment, again—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Mr. Cooper, not to cut you off, I think I've heard the arguments.

Mr. Turnbull, I think I've heard the arguments.

I've consulted with the legislative clerks here and there is agreement. I share the agreement that the amount of time that passes between meetings is not what's actually relevant. What's relevant is that there is time at a meeting.

I did adjourn immediately following the introduction of the subamendment by Mr. Cooper, which means that, in all fairness, it did not provide members of the committee an opportunity to speak to it or object to it. For that reason, in consultation with the experts I have beside me here, I am going to allow the challenge.

What we're going to do is go to a vote on this now.

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

I'm going to challenge the chair on the ruling about when it is permissible to challenge. I'm sorry.

Two days ago, the meeting was adjourned. Mr. Cooper clearly laid out that there was an opportunity. He had recommitted; he restarted, and he was in the debate. Mr. Turnbull said at that point that he didn't like this and thought it was already dealt with. He had the copy of the subamendment. He had all of it. He could have taken the floor and he did not. He did not follow the rules and challenge the chair at the first opportunity, whether it was in the other meeting or not.

I'm going to challenge the chair on the interpretation of being able to challenge the chair within a reasonable manner.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

That's fair enough, Mr. Duncan.

What I need to do now is figure out procedurally how we move forward in terms of dealing with these two challenges.

Hold on for one moment, please.

Colleagues, you cannot challenge a challenge. You can't have a challenge within a challenge. This is a dilatory decision, in the sense that we're going to go right to a vote. I'm going to explain what's happening here.

The vote is to determine whether or not my previous ruling, which was that the subamendment was admissible, is in fact worthy of being upheld or not. That's what we're voting on.

I call the question to the clerk.

Clerk, perhaps you can also explain in your own language, so we're very clear here.

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

The question is whether the chair's decision shall be sustained.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Can you explain what the decision was on, please?

[The Clerk]

It's the decision on the admissibility of the subamendment. The chair ruled that the subamendment is in order.

(Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 6; yeas 5)

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Mr. Duncan, I'll come to your point of order in just a moment, once I explain to committee members what's happened here.

What happened was the chair's decision has been overruled, which means that we fall back to debate on NDP-2.

We'll go to Mr. Duncan on a point of order. Then, I see Ms. Barron and Mr. Cooper.

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

On challenging the chair, my understanding is that I could not challenge the chair regarding a challenge to the chair, but now that it has been dealt with and there's not one on the table, I would like to challenge your decision now to see if it is possible to do so.

I do not believe it's appropriate. We've clearly laid out what the rules were, and Mr. Turnbull did not take the opportunity—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Mr. Duncan, I don't mean to cut you off, but we can't have a challenge on something that's been dealt with already. The committee has, through its will with a majority vote, determined what it would like to do on this, so we are back on NDP-2 at this point.

I have Ms. Barron, Mr. Cooper and then Mr. Turnbull.

To be clear, colleagues, we are back on NDP-2.

Go ahead, Ms. Barron. The floor is yours.

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

Thank you, Chair.

First and foremost, I'm happy that we're back on track and actually putting forward a resolution to the problem that continues to be brought forward by my Conservative colleagues. Again, we have a solution to the problem, and instead of voting in favour of the solution, the Conservatives are finding every way to filibuster this committee and get the clips they want to be able to fundraise immediately, even during this committee. This is another example.

I can guarantee that as soon as I stop talking, there's going to be another subamendment brought forward and another subamendment brought forward, each one as illegitimate as the one before it. I can guarantee that each subamendment is going to be talking about the pensions of members of Parliament.

The thing is, we actually know that those who would benefit the most from this clause in the bill are the Conservative members of Parliament. I find it very convenient that the Conservative members of Parliament are sitting here, fundraising and saying this is a bill that benefits only members of Parliament pensions, yet they're doing absolutely nothing to actually resolve the issue. As a matter of fact, they're doing the opposite of resolving the issue; they are purposely sabotaging our ability to resolve this issue.

Mr. Chair, I never, ever like to attach intentions to any one of my colleagues. However, I would like to point out the facts.

The majority of Conservative members of Parliament are those who would benefit from this remaining in this bill. Today—just like at the last meeting, the meeting before that and probably the meeting that comes up next—we see members of Parliament from the Conservative Party sabotaging the ability of this committee to resolve the issue. It seems a little convenient to me, Mr. Chair.

Today, again, I'm so happy that we're back at clause 5 and the motion that my NDP colleagues and I put forward together to resolve this issue. I will reiterate that around this table, the Bloc Québécois have said they are in support and the Liberals have said that they are in support. The ironic part of this is that the Conservatives have also said they are in support of our making these changes.

What is happening here? How can you say one thing and do the opposite? Apparently, that's what the Conservatives can do over and over again. Here we are again.

I would love to be able to read out all the subamendments that we already have handy, because we know they're coming. I would love to be able to tear apart the fact that there is actually no difference between any of those subamendments, so I hope the Conservatives can bring them forward. My hope is that we can, as a committee, look at those subamendments and figure out whether there actually are differences among these subamendments. I can guarantee that there is not.

At the root of each one of these subamendments is how to sabotage a bill that is looking at improving our electoral system, ensuring that we have elections that are strong and barrier-free and putting into place the solutions that so many who showed up as witnesses here at this committee told us about.

There are issues of barriers preventing those living with disabilities from being able to cast a ballot. There are issues surrounding seniors being able to vote in long-term care homes. We have issues where the dates are too narrowly.... We need to see it extended to have more dates so that people can show up at the ballots to cast their vote. We know people are busy. We know people are working. We know people have schedules with so many moving pieces in this busy world we're in. We need to have that flexibility so that people can show up at the ballots.

We need to have clear repercussions when there's false information being spread to deter people from showing up at the ballots, so that we don't have another Conservative robocall scandal. We need to make sure that we have the processes in place to protect our electoral system.

Again, I will agree with the Conservatives on the frustration about this component of the bill that speaks to the MPs' pensions. Do you know what I did as a result of those frustrations? I found a solution, Mr. Chair. Immediately upon this being brought to my attention, I found a solution.

I stood up in the House. I clearly articulated the fact that I would not be supporting this component of the bill. Right after I stood up in the House of Commons, suddenly we had a Conservative member, who's here today, standing up, reacting to the fact that I stood up in the House of Commons and talking about burning the entire bill and this entire House down.

This Conservative Party does not want to see anything being done in the House of Commons. They just want to see the place being burnt down. It makes sense that they would not want to see a bill move forward that improves our electoral systems.

Do you know what? If we had barriers reduced and had voters who were engaged and felt that their votes were counted and that they were making a difference, and if we had the systems in place to give Canadians the confidence that we are strengthening our electoral system, and people showed up at the polls with the numbers that we should be having, do you know who wouldn't win? The Conservatives wouldn't. We know that, if we had an opportunity to increase and have everyday people showing up at the polls, not just those who have profits at stake, the Conservative Party would be at a loss.

Mr. Chair, there is so much that we could be talking about right now. I cannot begin to express how frustrated I am that we are just sitting here listening to the Conservatives doing their fundraising pitches on division and hate, disengaging Canadians from our electoral system. I don't want to be sitting here and talking about all these things over and over again. We've heard all of them.

The way that we move together on a path forward is by putting forward a solution and supporting the solution to remedy the problem that has been identified in the bill. This particular amendment that I put forward does exactly that.

I don't know what else we can do other than sit here. The Conservatives are basically holding us all hostage, and holding taxpayers' money.... Our being here is publicly funded, including the translators who are being used, the time and the space. The Conservatives are costing taxpayers money in order to waste our time.

I am frustrated. I'm frustrated for Canadians. I'm frustrated for all of us. We could have put forward a solution that could have been quick. It could have been done by now, and we could be talking about how we improve this bill. There are other issues with this bill. Let's talk about them. Let's go through it piece by piece and see if we can come together with some solutions on moving forward to strengthen our democratic systems.

Our job as elected officials is to come together. We can have different perspectives. That's okay. We can have different ways of looking at how to strengthen our electoral system. That's okay, but we need to lean on the experts in the field to get their recommendations. We need to lean on those who have lived experience of having challenges reaching the polls. We need to come together, share our concerns, share the positive solutions that we know are out there and put together a bill that will benefit Canadians. This doesn't seem like all that big of an ask. You would think that it would be a very foundational piece of our work to be doing exactly this.

Mr. Chair, I hesitate. I hesitate to give up the floor, because I'm really tired of listening to the Conservatives' hate, division and disengagement of Canadians across the country. The second I give up this floor, another subamendment is going to be put forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Colleagues, there's been a lot of chatter, which leads me to believe that maybe everyone has to take a deep breath. I'm just going to suspend here for a moment and let everybody get a glass of water. We'll go from there, okay?

We are suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Colleagues, before I give the floor back to Ms. Barron, I want to say that there was a fair amount of crosstalk. I know that this is affectionately referred to as “silly season”, because members are tired. We've been working night and day, and therefore the tensions can increase.

I would just ask that we do our best to perhaps mumble our comments a bit more quietly and allow for a more respectful flow of conversation.

With that, Ms. Barron, I will turn the floor back over to you.

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

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—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Ms. Barron, I'm going to interrupt for one second.

I see that Mr. Morrice has his hand up. I want to make sure it's not on a point of order.

Mr. Morrice, for future reference, should you have a point of order, feel free to interject on your audio.

You have a hand up, however. Is that because you want to be added to the list, or is it a mistake?

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

I think he's waiting.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I would like to be added to the list.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Okay. You're added to the list. That's not a problem, Mr. Morrice. I can do that.

Ms. Barron, continue.

Oh, is that a point of order?

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

Yes, I have a point of order.

Can we get an update on the speaking order?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Yes. The speaking goes Ms. Barron, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Turnbull and Mr. Morrice. I had you on there for the subamendment. I do not have you on here on the main motion.

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

I'm glad I raised the point of order.

I'd like to get on there, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

I will add you to the list.

Who would like to go first, Mr. Calkins or Mr. Duncan?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

It's Eric, then me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Wonderful.

Ms. Barron, the floor is yours.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Seeing my colleague MP Morrice here, I also want to reiterate and clarify a point that I had not thought of until this moment. This is the fact that I'm pretty sure the Greens are also on board with us in having this issue resolved. I'm seeing his head nodding. I don't like to put words in anybody else's mouth. I recognize that he's probably never going to get an opportunity to speak, because the Conservatives will continue to filibuster once I stop speaking. I want to reiterate that the Green Party have also made it very clear they are not in support of this. I know my colleague Mr. Morrice was elected at the same time I was, in 2021, and would also not stand to benefit from this. However, he is also making the decision to not put MP pensions at the forefront at a time when Canadians are struggling to make ends meet. I will allow him the space to speak, hopefully, and support him in doing so at his turn.

Seeing MP Morrice here reinforces to me how united we are in seeing this issue resolved, and it reminds me of how frustrating it is. I don't know whether my colleague here has been watching the series of events unfolding in this committee, where the Conservatives have used every possible opportunity to sabotage any movement in a positive direction on this bill. In fact, they are instead using this as an opportunity to divide Canadians, provide the clips they need to fill their bank account in time for the next election, and spread more misinformation. There's a vicious cycle of misinformation being spread by the Conservatives about this bill. Calling it nothing but an “MP pension bill” sure does benefit them. I would love to hear from the Conservatives about how much money they have fundraised off this misinformation from the very onset. I would love for them to explain to Canadians across the country, who are providing them with funds based on misinformation, why in fact they are providing false information.

There are no facts behind this, because we have an amendment in front of us that clearly articulates a solution to the problem. I'm offering an opportunity for all of us to come together and resolve this issue once and for all. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chair, I brought forward a unanimous consent motion prior to our moving to this amendment. It called on all members of Parliament to bring this amendment to a vote. It was not even about debating it, in the beginning. At first, it was just about calling it to a vote, because we'd already made our stance clear on this: “Why not use this as an opportunity for us to bring it to a vote and have this remedied once and for all?”

Of course, as expected, the Conservatives voted against it. They voted against our resolving the issue of MP pensions. Again, that CTV article.... How many Conservative members of Parliament benefit from pensions remaining in this bill? Well, it's quite a few. It's pretty interesting that they don't want to move forward on this.

Now, another thing I want to bring up, which is completely interconnected with the amendment I brought forward, is an interesting piece. Again, I can't even begin to pretend I know what's going on in the Conservatives' minds. I'm going to acknowledge that there are a lot more of them than there is of me, and they have a well-oiled machine, with people behind the scenes who are in the process of figuring out ways to silence me and make sure this does not come forward. There was a motion that came forward by my colleague Mr. Cooper, talking about the transparency of documents, making sure information about how this bill was constructed is brought forward. The interesting thing is that this was, again, a huge fundraising opportunity for the Conservatives. They get to talk about the corruption and everything happening behind the scenes. However, as soon as I mentioned to the Conservatives that I am in support of this bill, it was crickets. Hm. There's nothing happening on this particular bill anymore, now that the Conservatives know I agree.

I'm perfectly okay with providing all the information I have. Do you want to know why? If they would like an actual copy of the report by the Chief Electoral Officer, well, all the information is right in there.

All the points that we talk about in Bill C-65.... You can actually look right in the recommendation of the report from the Chief Electoral Officer, and you can see them directly coinciding with one another. I know we had some success in getting the Conservatives to agree for us to move to this particular amendment the last time I read through the Chief Electoral Officer's report, so I'd be happy to perhaps do some more reading through there to see if the Conservatives would be willing to change their minds again on it.

I just want to reiterate the ways in which there are things coming forward based on opportunistic ways of fundraising. This motion here around transparency just sits on the side now. Nothing's happening with it. If they'd like to bring it forward, I'd be happy to provide them with the information that I'm, apparently, keeping secret.

With regard to the unanimous consent motion for us to bring this to a vote so that we can finally have the issue around the MP pensions resolved, well, the Conservatives voted against that. Now we're on an amendment to, once again, resolve this issue, but instead, the Conservatives are filibustering. I hope that Canadians are paying attention and that they are noticing the pattern of behaviour when the Conservatives are the ones who benefit the most from keeping this MP pensions portion in the bill. I would love to also get a list of names, actually, to find out if there are any Conservative MPs at this table who benefit directly. I don't know. That's something I'll definitely have to look into; maybe Canadians can also look into that.

On that note, Mr. Chair, there are many reasons that I feel that it is vitally important for us to move forward with this bill. I have the honour of being in this position because I was elected by people in Nanaimo—Ladysmith to represent them, to keep my values intact and to ensure that our electoral system is strong for future elections. I can't determine the outcome of the next election; that'll be up to constituents in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith. I can assure you that my job is to make sure I'm doing the work to have our electoral system be as strong as possible for whatever the outcome of the next election is.

Many of the components of this bill that have been brought forward, that we heard from witnesses about.... There's adding two additional days of advanced polling. I talked about this, about the barriers and about people being able to cast their ballots based on their busy schedules. There's often weather. We have extreme weather because of the climate crisis, which the Conservatives, of course, don't believe in. It's good to have additional options.

The mail-in ballots, Mr. Chair, are another component of this bill that is also a component that is being improved upon. We know there are delays that occur in the mail-in ballots. Having a system that's more effective at being able to count those ballots and for people to be able to use those ballots is important. One barrier that was identified to us—actually, it was identified to me by constituents in my riding prior to our starting this study—is that if you make the decision to use a mail-in ballot and, for some reason, change your mind on that, you can't then show up at the polls. This is a component of that. It's talking about that problem and how to remedy that so that people can still have their ballot count if they don't get in their mail-in ballots in the timeline that's provided to them.

Another piece in here is enshrining in legislation the vote on campus program for post-secondary students. We heard from many witnesses, including witnesses from Apathy is Boring, about how important it is that we have the vote on campus program. It was so unfortunate to see that not being offered in the last election. We heard about how students are more engaged when they are able to access the ballot more readily on campus, and how it's also an opportunity for people in the community to be able to come on campus and participate in the democratic systems.

Mr. Chair, there are parts in here around requiring a report to Parliament by the Chief Electoral Officer on steps needed to give electors the ability to vote at any polling station in their riding by 2029.

Again, there are some components in here, and I really wish that we could have an opportunity to talk about them. I'd like to see things being done in a more timely manner. I'd like to see some of those “should”s turned into “must”s in this legislation. There are amendments that we've put in. I think there are over 100 amendments related to this bill that we could be talking about to see the improvements required for us to move forward.

They're all very much doable amendments. We could come together and say that, yes, we want to make that change, and we want to move forward with strengthening our electoral system.

The requirement of a report to Parliament by the Chief Electoral Officer on steps needed to give electors the ability to vote at any polling station is one piece we saw in the provincial election that just happened in British Columbia. People talked about how much they appreciated being able to go to any polling station to cast their ballot. I myself went out the door, and all I had to do was look for a sign basically just letting me know that I could vote at that spot. Wherever I was in my community at that time, I just pulled over and voted in the one that suited me. It was very convenient to be able to do so.

The bill introduces new protections against people knowingly making false or misleading statements related to an election or the voting process. Again we talked about the Conservative robocall scandal already. We talked about the former Conservative member of Parliament who knowingly put forward false information in order to have constituents and Canadians go to the wrong polls in order to see an intended outcome of the election. This bill has new protections against that, because I am not optimistic, unfortunately. It's a sad situation, but I am not optimistic that we are not going to continue to see Conservatives pushing out misinformation to see an intended outcome of an election.

Now, I'm just looking through all the witnesses that we had here. I want to also acknowledge the witnesses that we have in front of us today, and I thank them for their patience and for the expert information that they provided to us today and in previous meetings. I want to empathize with their frustration at our not fully utilizing their skill set and their very valuable time while they are here. I want to reassure the witnesses, both those who are here and those who have been here in previous meetings, that my goal is actually to see the vital information that has been provided to us by them being used to improve this bill, to see this bill move forward rather than to see all of that valuable information just be lost because the Conservatives would rather filibuster and use this as an opportunity to fundraise.

I want to reiterate how many incredible witnesses we had here today in addition to the people who are here right now. We had witnesses from the Canadian Labour Congress who talked about the positive aspects of this bill, specifically the flexibility for workers to be able to get to the polls and to be able to cast their ballots. They also talked about some issues and concerns that they had with the bill. Of course, I have put forward amendments to remedy those concerns. Again, this is important information to enable us to both recognize the strengths of this bill and make the necessary improvements to it.

We heard from the Public Service Alliance of Canada, who also reiterated how important it is that we see Canadians feeling engaged by our democratic systems and fully participating in our elections, and how important it is that we are reducing barriers to full participation.

We had a witness from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation who talked about the concerns of Canadians across the country around this particular part of the bill that speaks to MPs' pensions. I want to reiterate that I asked Mr. Terrazzano whether he would have any problem with the bill if this particular clause of the bill—providing MPs with pensions they would not have otherwise received—were to be removed. He made it very clear that he did not have any problems with the bill. As a matter of fact, he said that he wouldn't be appearing if it weren't for that piece. I hope I'm not misquoting him, but he said something along those lines. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation made it very clear. I'm so surprised that the Conservatives are not listening to the federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation when he is saying that there is no issue if we resolve this particular component of the bill.

Well, we have the opportunity to do so today if there is agreement among members to bring this to a vote. I'm pretty sure we can all do that today.

Let me see. Who else did we have here today, Mr. Chair? We had members from the Privy Council Office. We had witnesses from Apathy Is Boring. I spoke about them already. We had Samantha Reusch here, talking about how important it is to have youth engaged in democracy. I believe she also talked about some of her concerns around foreign interference and how important it is we address that as well. We had Daniel Mulroy, a lawyer, speaking on behalf of Dean Steacy, a visually impaired disability rights advocate who provided incredible information to the committee. I believe it was through Mr. Mulroy that he provided everybody on this committee with a letter about how important it is to move forward with telephone voting—how much of a difference it would make for his ability to fully participate in our democratic systems, and for others who may have visual impairments or other barriers to casting their ballot.

Instead of moving forward with these amendments to see this work happen, we are seeing filibusters by Conservatives to secure their own pensions. There you have it.

We had the Indo-Caribbean Educators Network here. I want to speak about the fact that the Indo-Caribbean Educators Network talked about the importance of our acknowledging Diwali. Again—I believe I said this at this committee before—I completely understand how important it is to look at implications for religious holidays. That is a component for us to look at. I hear the frustrations around that. It's a situation where we see challenges with every proposed date around that time. Anyway, I agree it is something we need to talk about. The frustrating thing is that the Conservatives have now attached MP pensions to the conversation that I think we definitely need to be having, as a committee, about how religious holidays play into decisions like this. How do they coincide with one another, and what are the best steps for us in moving forward on that?

We had the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer here. We had Michael Pal from the faculty of law. I could go on, Mr. Chair, about how many people we had come to this committee. They have busy lives. They are doing important work, and they took the time to provide us with expert witness testimony based on lived experiences and expert opinion. They provided us with important information that reinforces the important parts of this bill. They provided us with an opportunity to strengthen the parts where the mark may have been missed. This is, Mr. Chair, part of the process of how we pass legislation. This is a government bill that has now come to committee so that members can provide input based on witness testimony. This is the time for us to express....

I really hope we get to a place where we can consider Conservative amendments—if there are any, outside of their playing filibuster games—around the pension piece, so they can maintain their pensions. I hope we can dig into this. I appreciate the important debates we have, even when we have differing opinions.

I know the NDP and Bloc don't see eye to eye on everything, and that we do see eye to eye on other things. I want to hear from the Bloc. I want to hear what those concerns are and about where we can come together.

I want to hear from the Liberals about the concerns they have, and I do want to hear from the Conservatives about the concerns they have.

What I am definitely tired of, to be honest, is the record player going over and over again with the exact same narrative, which adds no value to this committee whatsoever, and the only intention is to filibuster, to fundraise and to divide Canadians with misinformation. It's not the way I would hope members of Parliament would act in these committees.

It appears that I've really nailed the disappointed mom. I've had many years to work on the disappointed mom, because I am very disappointed, Mr. Chair. My 21-year-old and 17-year-old would tell you that they've heard me go on this way and that they've seen this face before, and they would probably make fun of me for it, but what else are we left to do but be disappointed when we're being held hostage by a party that is refusing to do the work to resolve an issue that could be so easily resolved?

The solution is right in front of us. If the Conservatives hadn't voted against the unanimous consent motion that I put forward to see this issue resolved once and for all, it would be solved already. We could be giving the gift to Canadians across the country of the peace of mind of knowing that this is no longer part of this bill and that the issue is resolved because we, as members of Parliament, believe in resolving issues and we're not going to play politics. We're not going to look at the best interests of members of Parliament but we're going to do what is right for Canadians.

Again, I will reiterate that I actually think that talking about MP pensions could be an important discussion for us to have. Do I think it's an important discussion for us to have right now? No. Canadians are struggling to make ends meet. The cost of groceries is increasing. Housing is unaffordable. It is not the time for us to be talking about our own MP pensions, but I can assure you, if we are going to talk about our pensions, that I am going to push for it to be done in a transparent way so that Canadians know what we are talking about, so that the debate happens publicly, so that Canadians understand the rationale behind decisions being made and, again, so that it is not being added into an existing bill.

It is a really unfortunate situation that this has been added on here, because it has completely detracted from all of the important work and from all of the important witness testimony that we have received. Instead, the Conservatives continue to say over and over that this is nothing but an MP pension bill. My gosh, if I hear that one more time.... I don't understand how saying something over and over again suddenly makes it fact. I have pages upon pages in front of me, Mr. Chair, that show all of the different components of this bill. To oversimplify and say that this is only an MP pension bill—I don't know what possible explanation there could be for that. Have they not seen the entire bill? Has nobody presented it to them? I know it's available to all of us, as members of Parliament. Have they not sat down to actually read through the bill? If they have read through the bill, I don't understand how the Conservatives can say that this is only a pension bill.

Also, if they have read through the bill, I would love to talk about some of the other concerns they might have around the bill. Perhaps there are more, but I haven't had a chance to hear any of them. I haven't had a chance to hear any concerns that they have or to use the experts we have in the room today to be able to come together with a solution.

Maybe it will mean our taking a piece out of the bill. Maybe it will mean editing the bill. Maybe it will mean adding something to the bill to further clarify it. There are lots of things that we could do in this bill if the Conservatives have concerns.

Once again, I am open to that discussion, not just because it's the right thing to do but because it's my job. It's my job to sit at this table and talk about the bill and to come forward with solutions.

I wish there was a way I could force this to a vote right now, but there is not. It's very unfortunate that I can't. I will say that I put forward the unanimous consent motion calling on the Conservatives to resolve this issue once and for all, and they voted against it. I can assure you that if this were to go to a vote, we would see the exact same outcome again.

With that, as soon as I stop talking, I will hear another subamendment that'll probably have another proposed paragraph 56.1(3)(b) or (c) or (d) that specifies some random language that not a single Canadian—maybe some lawyers; I don't know.... If they're going to put forward another subamendment, I would appreciate hearing how it's different from the previous subamendments.

I appreciate my colleague MP Turnbull bringing that forward, because I had that same question. I'd like to understand what the actual intention is, other than to filibuster and to get good clips for fundraising. I would like to have a clear understanding of what it is that they're proposing, and why. I can assure the Conservatives that every step of the way their intentions now are being watched.

I want them to be aware that they're not fooling anybody with what they're doing. Canadians know that they are trying to waste our time, to fundraise for themselves and to pad their own pockets with their own MP pensions.

I'm sorry, but it's the truth. Sometimes the truth hurts. When the evidence and the facts are in front of me, what else am I left to conclude?

I can feel the responses behind me. I'm sorry if that's hurting somebody's feelings, but right now members of Parliament from the Conservative Party are refusing to resolve this issue when they are the ones who stand to benefit the most. What am I left to conclude? Canadians can decide for themselves.

With that, I look forward to hearing their next subamendment that will waste our time.