I don't quite understand the logic of bringing up Poilievre and his pension as somehow being an argument to be had as a rebuttal to Singh's situation.
He's been an MP since 2004 and beat a favoured incumbent doing so. He has been an MP for 20 years including several as a cabinet minister and now opposition leader. If an argument is to be made on which MP in the house has earned a pension, he is pretty much one of the worst targets you go can go for.
Liberal MPs from their 2015 majority win including Trudeau have earned their pension years ago and they do not come in question or in discussion when pension is mentioned.
https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Ne...%20(final).pdf
Jagmeet Singh has not secured his pension as of yet. He personally will get it in February 25 2025 for winning a by election seat back in Feb 25 2019 and tenured for 6 years. Singh moved to Burnaby and got appointed to a safe NDP riding in Burnaby South 2 years after becoming NDP leader
Securing a pension through tenure is absolutely a motivation for an MP to stay long to secure it. Who wouldn't want a pension for 6 years+ of work? I sure as heck know if I had a few months to go to secure one, I would try to make it. The early 2 year term 2021 election gave a unique opportunity for MPs to potentially qualify for one if only the election date was pushed by 1 extra week without the need to get re-elected.
Many current MPs who won their seats in 2019 have not earned a pension as of yet on tenure. The NDP and Liberals voted to change the election date back a week to Oct. 27, 2025 on the claim it would interfere with Diwali yet coincidentally get many Liberals and NDP MPs unlikely to get re-elected the tenure needed to secure their pension should elections be held at the last moment. This unpopular move caused backlash aimed at the NDP by constituents and they have since reversed their push.
This sneaky attempt by Liberals / NDP to assure themselves pensions while facing a potential major defeat is where Singh's own pension eligibility started getting talked about. Singh is in jeopardy of losing his seat at the moment with the current situation in Burnaby, riding changes and polling. It is unlikely he will stay as leader with another election disappointment.
It's most certainly also a vulnerability where his motives can be questioned by opposing parties because the NDP has opened themselves up to criticism. Peter Julien talking of looking at potential of non confidence in late February or early March (coincidentally after Singh would have secured his pension) even when faced with this complete debacle is not helping the optics at all.
Singh is quite wealthy and questioning his motivation on prolonging an election to secure his pension could certainly be argued against and a totally valid argument to shut down the discussion.
But bringing up an MP of the other political spectrum who have clearly earned it per the rules as a whataboutism to one who has clearly not earned it yet by the rules is quite a poor take.