44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 31, 2024 10:00AM
- May/31/24 10:24:09 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, what we have is a self-built elections bill that really is a pension bill. It ought to be called the “loser Liberal pension protection act” because what we have is a deeply unpopular government faced with an election date of October 20, 2025. The problem is that the Liberals elected in 2019 would not qualify for their pensions, so what does the government do? It tries to push back the election date to pad its pockets at the expense of Canadian taxpayers. It is about as cynical and as dishonest as it gets. To add to the level of dishonesty, the Liberals initially said that it was all about Diwali. It has nothing to do with Diwali.
If it has nothing to do with pensions, then why do the Liberals not get on with it and call a carbon tax election so that Canadians can be put out of the misery that the Liberal government has caused them?
163 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/24 10:31:24 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, with respect to the piece of legislation before us, the defeated Liberal MPs' protection act or, forgive me, it says it is the electoral participation act, the parliamentary secretary did not answer the colleague for St. Albert—Edmonton's question about the pension, specifically. All the parliamentary secretary has talked about is supposed electoral participation improvements and process improvements. He refuses to answer as to why the Liberals feel the need to delay the next federal election by a week, when the only reason to do so is to protect defeated MPs' pensions.
96 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/24 10:46:21 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would also like to congratulate the member for Chatham-Kent—Leamington on his speech.
My colleague just spoke about municipal elections, which are extremely important in Quebec, and about the need to motivate the public to get involved at every level in each election.
However, the sensitive issue of pensions cannot be overlooked. I know that my colleague touched on it earlier. Personally, I am extremely uncomfortable about telling Quebeckers that we are going to push back the date of the election. The only message that people will remember is that a whole bunch of MPs elected in 2019 are going to be eligible for their pensions. I think that sends a very bad message. It encourages and fuels cynicism toward politicians.
I would like to know whether my colleague would agree to a possible proposal to amend this bill and move the election to a different date, two or three weeks earlier if necessary. This would address concerns over the municipal elections scheduled at the same time and quell public cynicism toward politicians, precisely over the pension eligibility issue.
184 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/24 11:00:27 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would invite the member to talk to the member for Steveston—Richmond East, and then compare that to the testimony of our former colleague, Kenny Chiu, who provided evidence of the Liberal Party amplifying disinformation for the partisan gain of the Liberal Party.
That speaks to the integrity of the Liberals. If they had any integrity, and if it really was not about protecting their pensions, they would support my amendment and remove the loser Liberal Pension Protection Act from the bill.
86 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/24 11:53:51 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we have groundbreaking legislation to deal with the crisis that is climate change. We are the first government that has acted meaningfully on the issue of reconciliation. We lifted 2.3 million people out of poverty, hundreds of thousands of kids out of poverty. We are going to continue that record.
What we do not talk about enough as a country is pensions. The Conservatives want to join Danielle Smith to deplete the Canada pension plan by 53%. We will not let that happen.
86 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/24 12:18:34 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my colleague, my northern neighbour from St. Albert—Edmonton, cleared up quite a few issues in his speech. While we are hearing a lot of push-back from the government to his speech, I would just like to get a bit more feedback on whether the member really believes this is a pension bill for future Liberal losses for their benches or an actual change to the Electoral Participation Act. Why is it focusing so much on extending pension privileges for losing Liberal MPs, rather than focusing on helping Canadians in the election process?
97 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/24 12:19:16 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as I said, the bill ought to be called the “loser Liberal pension protection act”, and if it has nothing to do with pensions, then frankly, the government members should get on with what Canadians want so badly, which is for them to call a carbon tax election so that Canadians can once and for all rid themselves of arguably the most rotten and corrupt government in Canadian history.
73 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/24 12:45:20 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, for those who are watching, you are one of the longest-serving members in the chamber here, so it is good to see you in this role.
To my colleague, the NDP has proposed a change to stop the extra week that would allow this pension issue to rear its head and really distract from some good, necessary electoral reforms. There may be some other potential amendments that would help increase voting; voting numbers have not been as robust as what we would want.
The Liberals cannot get out of their own way. They continue to be the only party that wants to have this pension benefit thing exist. Would my colleague be supporting the NDP amendment to get rid of this entire pension debate, as well as other amendments to increase participation in democracy?
137 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
