Sparks fly as MPs question minister on pension implications of proposed election date change

Sparks flew at a parliamentary committee Thursday as MPs questioned Canada’s democratic institutions minister about a widely opposed provision in electoral reform legislation that seeks to delay the next fixed election date by one week.

Testifying about Bill C-65, the “Electoral Participation Act,” Public Safety and Democratic Institutions Minister Dominic LeBlanc faced a barrage of questions about the government’s proposal to move the next fixed election date from Oct. 20, 2025, to Oct. 27, 2025.

The Liberals have said the one-time Canada Elections Act carve-out is to avoid conflicts with fall holidays including Diwali, as well as local elections in Alberta.

Though, postponing the vote by even one day would also have the knock-on effect of securing pensions for 80 MPs first elected in 2019, who wouldn’t otherwise qualify if they lost their seats before hitting their six-year service mark on Oct. 21, 2025.

With all opposition parties coming out against the change – and today LeBlanc stating he will “happily respect the will of this committee” if it leaves the fixed date as it stands – the provision appears unlikely to make it into the final version of the legislation.

That didn’t stop opposition MPs from challenging LeBlanc about the change.

During the hearing, Conservative MPs suggested the real motivation of the proposal was to protect the pensions of 22 Liberal and six NDP MPs, though the Conservatives have the most MPs – 32 – whose pensions would potentially be on the line.

“Whose idea was it to pad your pockets? Was it your idea or was it the leader of the NDP’s idea?” Conservative MP Michael Cooper asked during Thursday’s meeting of the House of Commons Procedure and House Affairs Committee.

LeBlanc replied by congratulating Cooper on asking a question he can use in a clip for social media, and accused the Conservatives of displaying “supreme arrogance” in suggesting none of their MPs are at risk of being defeated.

In many respects the legislation was a co-production with the NDP, tied to the now-defunct two-party supply-and-confidence pact, though Singh secured his seat in a 2019 federal byelection months before the general election, so his timing for securing a pension is not the same.

During the hearing, Conservatives also questioned LeBlanc on meetings he had with top New Democrats in advance of the legislation being tabled.

“We just got information minutes before this meeting’s start of, in fact, secret meetings that did take place … there was NDP headquarters representatives that got a meeting with the Prime Minister’s Office, staff from your office, and Elections Canada to get information and briefings behind the scenes only revealed afterwards,” Conservative MP Eric Duncan put to LeBlanc.

LeBlanc replied by calling Duncan a “very experienced sleuth,” for unveiling what he said were “routine meetings of senior officials.”

“You find it shocking that parliamentarians work together in a collaborative way. We think it’s something that Canadians would find very positive,” LeBlanc said.

The Bloc Quebecois also challenged LeBlanc on the fixed election date change provision of the bill and the potential for other calendar conflicts if the federal vote is moved back one week.

There are 19 Bloc Quebecois MPs — more than half their caucus — who could stand to secure pensions if there was an election later than presently scheduled.

Though, Bloc Leader Yves-Francois Blanchet has recently stated he’s ready to help Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre bring Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s minority government down and prompt an early election, something LeBlanc pointed out in his response to Bloc MP Marilene Gill.

“I take note that you want an election right away… But irrespective of the date we choose … there’s going to be tension,” LeBlanc said in French. “We are doing the best we can, and the good news is that voters are very resilient.”

NDP MP Lisa Marie Barron confirmed Thursday that once the committee finalizes hearing from witnesses, she will propose an amendment during the clause-by-clause review to strike out the proposed date change.

Noting the tenor of Thursday’s hearing, Baron said she anticipates the acrimony over the so-called pension protections, which she called an “unintended benefit,” will “be resolved.”

Liberal MP Sherry Romanado told her colleagues that should an amendment be advanced to keep the current election date, she’d “be prepared to support it.”

“We’ve been focusing a lot on the date, but there’s so many more important things,” Romanado said.

The bill, tabled in March, also proposes a series of elections law reforms aimed at making it easier for Canadians to vote and harder for bad actors to meddle.

Government House Leader Karina Gould recently put a motion on notice seeking to expedite the committee’s work and the subsequent rounds of Commons scrutiny, should the current privilege filibuster that’s stalling work in the House end.